



-\- 




A <fr 



6 -u 



x°A. 



■^m/j 



$ Xu * i 



x°9, 



A A V 









4? ^ 



A^ c° Nc « **£>. 



* A 




A - 



o A t 







,0 a 



o p A a ^L/* ^ 

%<$ : : %/ 

«?*% I ( lp* a^'% 
<r y o , a a 



'V* 

o 




'A 


$ 


; ,0 


% 



'<&> A 



A" x M ' " < 



.-X 



A c 



3 N 




^ A^ 




A 

A V 



* 



.o N o ■ ^ 






oo ( 



8 I 1 , V 






v s\^> 







^ / 



<0 

A 

A * ^ * ° 



%A A1 



i x 



■^ l> ^ X ._ ^>7_ "* "I 



-4 - A * 




••»%; 



s^ - 




V c ° 



N C . ^A 



,0o 



A <<P 




V 



v*> '^ 



. 



N ° ' ^ v * n *t+ Nn 4 A 



</> ,V 



'A <3 



A 



c S ,<V 




;«" A A 

A ° N G /- "^' 







■ 



* A V 









: A V^ = 



_ 



^ ^ 



v0 o. 



A -a 



A o. 






3 0' 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



o http://www.archive.org/details/somelieserrorsofOOpars 



SOME LIES AND ERRORS 
OF HISTORY. 



BY 

REV, REUBEN PARSONS, D,D. 

Author of "Studies in Church History." 



L'homme est de glace aux verites, 
II est de feu pour le mensoiige." 

Lafontaine. 



Rfprinted from the "AVE MABIA." 
Second and Enlarged Edition. 




NOTRE DAME, IND. : 
OFFICE OF THE "AVE MARIA." 



*j b 7i y 



x " I 



?3 



THE LIBRARY [ 
OF CONGRESS 



WASHINGTON 
Copyright, 1893, 
By DANIEL E. HUDSON. 



BECKTOLD & Co., Printers and Binders, 
St. Louis, Mo. 



PREFACE 



The following essays, selected from among those 
contributed by the author to the "Ave Maria" dur- 
ing the last few years, include some subjects which, 
though important, are seldom brought to the atten- 
tion of any but the lovers of the recondite. For 
the presentation of these no explanation need be 
tendered; but others are introduced, the themes 
of which have become trite, even to persons of no 
extraordinary erudition. Perhaps, therefore, indul- 
gence should be asked for an apparently reckless 
augmentation of the mass of polemics already super- 
fluous and tiresome. Nevertheless, such an apology 
shall not be made. The fact that the indicated 
errors are constantly being advanced, despite the 
multifarious refutations which are at the command 
of the sincere investigator; the fact that these er- 
rors too often meet with silence on the part of those 
whose highest interests demand their exposition; 



iv Preface. 

these strange and saddening considerations justify 
our action, and preclude any fear of its being ascribed 
to a cacoethes scribendi. Again, while in some in- 
stances the reader may find nothing new presented 
for his reflections, the subject-matter may stand 
forth in a new light, owing to the method of its 
treatment; and thus the author may gain his ob- 
ject — the elucidation of a knotty question, or the 
manifestation of a hideous lie, in a mind which 
other writers have not influenced. 

In choosing his subjects, the author has suffered 
from an embarrassment of riches, and he has fan- 
cied that he was about to imitate the child who tried 
to clear away the ocean with a spoon. Several vol- 
umes would be required for an exposition of merely 
the most prominent of the Lies and Errors of His- 
tory. We do not threaten the libraries with any 
polemical avalanche, but we do propose soon to put 
forth another effort in the good cause. An endeavor 
to dislodge the spirit of falsehood from the position 
to which it has been elevated by those writers whom 
De Maistre, with but little exaggeration, charges 
with having entered into a deliberate conspiracy 
against truth, may be an attempt to emulate the 
labors of Sisyphus. But some measure of success 
is attainable. "That error which precedes truth is 



Preface. . v 

only an ignorance of it; that which follows is a 

hatred of truth." They who form the first class 

of the two into whkh Valery would thus properly 

divide the victims of historical heterodoxy, are 

amenable to conviction, and to their assistance 

this volume is dedicated. ^ ^ 

±C. Jr. 

New York, Jan. 18, 1S92. 



CONTENTS 



Pope Alexander VI. ..... 1 

The Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. . 21 

Bruno and Campanella ...... 33 

St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Murder of Hypatia . 44 

The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine ... 54 

Fenelon and Voltaire .... . . . 6S 

Galileo 80 

The Grey Cardinal . 104 

"I am the State! "—Did Louis XIV. Ever Say So? . 113 
The Truth About the Inquisition . . . .121 

Louis XL; The Travestied and the Real . . . 159 

Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic ..... 170 

Louis XIII. as He Was 184 

The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment .... 197 

Wicked Venice 207 

The Last Word on the Massacre of Sr. Bartholomew's 

Day . . .221 

The Middle Age Not a Starless Night . . .249 

The Man With the Iron Mask 271 

The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results . . 286 
The "Orthodox" Russian, and the Schismatic Greek 

Churches 304 

Columbus and His Alleged Crimes .... 320 

Appendix ......... 335 

vii 



SOME LIES AND ERRORS 
OF HISTORY. 



POPE ALEXANDER VI. 

Accokding to the majority of authors, Pope 
Alexander VI. had neither the virtues which befit 
the Supreme Pontificate of Christendom, nor those 
of any ordinary man. His name appears synonymous 
with simony, treachery, cruelty, lust, avarice, and 
sacrilege. Other memories, long contemned and 
even accursed, have been rehabilitated; but that of 
Alexander VI. remains, to most men, foul and de- 
testable. Are we, therefore, to take for granted all 
that has been alleged against this Pontiff? Even 
Eoscoe contends that "whatever have been his 
crimes, there can be no doubt but they have been 
highly overcharged. . . . The vices of Alexander 
were accompanied, although not compensated, by 
many great qualities which, in the consideration of 
his character, ought not to be passed over in silence. 
Nor, if this were not the fact, would it be possible to 
account for the peculiar good fortune which attended 
him to the latest period of his life ; or for the singu- 
lar circumstance recorded of him : that during the 

1 



2 Pope Alexander VI. 

whole term of his pontificate no popular tumult ever 
endangered his authority or disturbed his repose?" 
To Burkhard, master of ceremonies in the court 
of Alexander VI., we are indebted for most of the 
information which blackens the character of the 
Pontiff. But, granting that we possess the authen- 
tic work of Burkhard, which is very uncertain,* of 
what weight is his authority ? A master of ceremo- 
nies in a royal court does not fill a position which 
would of itself imply a possession of accurate 
knowledge of the court's secrets. He may, at 
times, come into some kind of contact with great 
personages. His master, with that shadow of inti- 
macy often affected with a superior servant, may 
condescend, now and then, to display good-humor 
in his presence. A foreign ambassador, daring the 



* Until 1696 the "Diary" was known only by a fragment 
given by Godefroy, in his "History of Charles VIII.," published 
in 1684 ; and by some vague citations of Rinaldi in his continu- 
ation of Baronio. But in 1696 Leibnitz published at Hanover a 
quarto volume, entitled : "A Specimen of Secret History; or, 
Anecdotes of the Life of Alexander VI. ; Extracts from the Di- 
ary of John Burkhard. " In his preface Leibnitz regrets that he 
could not find the text of Burkhard; but a few years afterward 
he thought that he had found the true text in a MS. given him 
by Lacroze, and would have published it had not death inter- 
vened. Eccard published the "Diary" at Leipzic in 1732, in 
his "Writers of the Middle Age," following a Berlin MS., 
which may have been the one handed by Lacroze to Leibnitz. 
According to Eccard's own admission, this MS. was very de- 
fective, and the editor had frequent recourse to the extract of 
Leibnitz that order might be established. In Leibnitz there 
are articles which are wanting in Eccard, and toward the end the 
two become so dissimilar as to appear utterly different works. 



Pope Alexander VI. 3 

intervals of a tedious levee, may deign to gossip with 
him about unimportant matters. He may even be 
a great dignitary in the eyes of the lackeys on the 
staircase, or in the estimation of the dawdlers in the 
antechamber, and thus he may pick up a deal of 
tavern statecraft. His authority may be overwhelm- 
ing when he decides on the proper color of a ribband, 
or even in a question of precedency. But his 
"Diary" can scarcely be regarded as testimony con- 
cerning the secrets of the court. 

Gregorovius,* the latest Protestant historian to 
attack the memory of Alexander VI., has the 
assurance to say that the "Diary" of Burkhard 
"is, with the exception of the journal of Infessura, 
which ends at the commencement of 1494, the 
only work concerning the court of Alexander com- 
posed at Eome; and it has even an official ( !) 



Eccard wished that some one would discover a good copy of 
the "Diary;" and finally Lacurne de Sainte-Palaye found in 
the library of Prince Chigi at Rome a MS. in five quarto 
volumes, which seemed to contain the entire work, — begin- 
ning December 1, 1483 (the date of Burkhard's appointment as 
master of ceremonies), and ending May 31, 1506, a year after 
his death, — which fact demonstrates that the diarist had a 
continuator. In our day a third editor has appeared. Achille 
Gennarelli (Florence, 1855,) has thought to produce the true 
text by uniting the dubious ones of Leibnitz and Eccard, and 
some other MSS. He admits, and most ingeniously, that he 
has filled up hiatuses with quotations from Summonte, Infes- 
sura, etc., etc. It is the opinion of the Abbe" Clement (de 
Yebron) that all the weight of erudition displayed by Genna- 
relli does not add one particle more of authenticity to the 
"Diary." See "Les Borgia," Paris, 18S2. 

* "Lucretia Borgia, according to Original Documents and 
Contemporary Correspondence," 1S76, 



4 Pope Alexander VI. 

character. . . . He never repeats mere rumors." 
The ' 'Diary" is before us, and there is scarcely 
a page where we do not read: "If I remember 
aright (si recte memini}-" or "If the truth has 
been told me (si vera sunt mihi relata)-" or "It 
is said (fertur)." Gregorovius opines that the 
apologists of the Holy See would feel less con- 
tempt for Burkhard if they would consult the 
"Relations" of the Venetian ambassadors to their 
government.* He presents the "Relation" of Polo 
Capello (ambassador at Rome from April, 1499, to 
September, 1500) as manifesting "the intrigues of 
the court of Alexander VI., the long series of 
crimes perpetrated therein, its exactions, the traffic 
in cardinals' hats, etc." f But, setting aside the 
numerous inexactnesses of this "Relation" of 
Capello, and not a few gross errors, J we must re- 
gard it as of little value in the premises ; since it 
was writen, not by Capello, but by the Senator 



* Pasquale Villari, an editor of these "Relations," is not 
such an apologist, and yet he says : "Doubts have been raised 
as to the authenticity of the 'Diary' of Burkhard. New publi- 
cations have lessened, but have not put an end to, these 
doubts." See Villari's "Dispatches of Giustiniani," vol. i, in 
preface. Florence, 1876. 

f Loc. cit., vol. i, p. 326. 

% For instance, it gives to Alexander a brother named Louis 
del Mila, while no such brother, but a cousin — John delMila, — 
existed. It narrates that Cnpello, before his departure from 
Rome on September 19, 1500, went to the Vatican to inform 
the Pontiff of the surrender of Rimini and Faenza ; but Rimini 
did not fall until the end of October, while Faenza held out 
until the following April. It makes Snnseverino, instead of 
Ascanio Sforza, vice-chancellor of the Roman Church. 



Pope Alexander VI. 5 

Marino Sanuto,* who, while often furnishing us 
valuable historical documents, causes one to smile 
at his frequent credulity, and to hesitate to accept 
him as an authority. f 

After Burkhard, the great historian Guicciardini 
is the chief source of the accusations against Alex- 
ander VI. ; Guicciardini, of whom even the arch- 
sceptic Bayle says that "he merits hatred" because 
of his partiality, — "a fault of gazetteers," but one 



* An old law of Venice had obliged her ambassadors, after 
their term of office, to deposit in the Venetian chancery a 
"Relation" of all they had learned; but toward the end of 
the fifteenth century this law was almost entirely ignored, and 
was enforced again only in 1538. Marino Sanuto, in his 
"Diaries" embracing the period from 1496 to 1533, filled the 
hiatuses. 

f The Venetian Senator Malipiero, in his "Chronicle," 
tells us that Sanuto informed the Venetian Senate of the find- 
ing in the Tiber, in January, 1496, of a monstrosity having the 
head of an ass, a right arm like an elephant's trunk, a left arm 
like that of a man, one foot like that of an ox, the other like 
that of a griffin, a woman's bosom, and the lower part of the 
body like that of a dragon. The creature emitted fire from 
its mouth. The Abbe Clement thinks that these details came 
direct from Germany, where, in 1524, Luther published his 
caricature of the "Pope-Ass." Rawdon Brown, in his "In- 
formation on the Life and Works of Marino Sanuto," Venice, 
1837, says that it would seem that such tales "were written 
for the Lutherans; but for historians, they failed in their 
object." Nevertheless, says Clement, "certain candid minds 
believe the narrations of these pamphletary chroniclers; just 
as in Germany some persons, full of faith in Luther and his 
works, believe in the finding of the Pope- Ass in the Tiber. 
But one would suppose that Sanuto would not be so exces- 
sively credulous. Read the 'Diaries' now made public, and 
you will find the contrary." 



6 Pope Alexander VI. 

"inexcusable in a historian;" whom even Yoltaire 
regards as mendacious ; and whose own conscience 
caused him, when asked on his death-bed what dis- 
position should be made of his "History," then 
still in manuscript, to reply: "Burn it." Cantii 
says of this author: "He regards the success, not 
the justice, of a cause. . . . He not only ex- 
amines and judges the Pontiffs as he does other 
rulers, but he always finds them in the wrong."* 
Capefiguej regards Guicciardini as "an impas- 
sioned colorist," who ever "breathes hatred of 
the Pope, the French, the Milanese, and Sforza. 
Florence, a city of pleasure, of libels, and of dis- 
sipation, loved the licentious tales of Boccaccio, 
the policy of Machiavelli, and the stories of poison 
and treason unfolded in the books of Guicciardini." 
This historian was devoted to the Colonna and the 
Orsini families, and was also a partisan of Savon- 
arola : quite naturally, therefore, he was a foe to 
the Borgias. Add to this that his hatred served his 
interests ; for by exercising it he pleased the Flor- 
entines, the Venetians, and all who were then in 
opposition to the court of Eome. 

The authority of Paul Jovius, Bishop of Nocera, 
is of much less value than that of Guicciardini ; for, 
being most venal, he is always either panegyrizing 
or calumniating. One day he was reproved for 



* "Heretics of Italy," Discourse IX. Turin, 1865. 
t "History of the Church during the Last Four Centuries." 
Paris, 1S55. 



Pope Alexander VI. 7 

having narrated falsely, and he rejoined: "No mat- 
ter; three hundred years hence it will be true."* 
Cantu styles Jovius the "lying gazetteer of that 
epoch. "f Audin says that no historian ever "cared 
so little for his reputation as Paul Jovius. He rep- 
resents himself as languishing with inertness, be- 
cause no one comes to purchase him. "J Jerome 
Muzio asserted that Jovius showed diligence "only 
in obtaining the favors of the great, and he who 
gave the most was the principal hero of his works." § 
Vossius says that "for money Jovius would furnish 
posterity with a good character for any child of 
earth, but that he would calumniate all who did not 
pay for his services." || 

Very little need be said of Tomaso Tomasi, an- 
other of the sources used by the defamers of Alex- 
ander VI. In his "Life" of Csesar Borgia he had 
two objects in view : one was the favor of a princess 
of the Rovere family, which favor he thought to 
secure by decrying the Pontiff whom the Cardinal 
of St. Peter's ad Vincula, her brother, had antag- 
onized; the other was to exhibit in Caesar a type 
of monstrosity which would exceed the efforts of 
the most rampant imagination. Even Gordon, to 
whom Roscoe attributes the reduction of history to 
below the level of romance, distrusts the authority 
of Tomasi. 



* The Emperor Charles V. used to call Jovius and Sleidan 
"his two liars," one of whom spoke too well of him, and the 
other too ill. 

t Log. tit., Discourse XIII. X "Leo X." 

§ Tiraboschi, "Ital. Lit.," vol. vii, p. 2. 

|| "Art of History," c. 9. 



8 Pope Alexander VI. 

As for the manuscript notices upon which many 
modern authors rely, they are of little or no value. 
Very few of them bear the names of their authors, 
and, therefore, they are unguaranteed. Most of 
them are diatribes, not narratives. They are posi- 
tive where matters are at least doubtful, and they 
carefully avoid everything creditable to our Pontiff. 
Many of them are needlessly prodigal with their 
venom. Casting aside, therefore, all such alleged 
authorities, and recurring only to facts and acts, we 
find that Alexander VI. had many virtues of a 
Pope and a sovereign; that, especially as king, he 
was more than ordinarily active and prudent, and 
nearly always successful in his enterprises ; that 
his people loved him, and his reign was profoundly 
tranquil. One great fault he had, and perhaps 
this one was the source of all the others : he was 
passionately attached to the children — four sons 
and a daughter — who are generally supposed to 
have been born to him, but before he received Holy 
Orders ; * and to aggrandize his family he made too 



* While yet following the profession of arms, according 
to most authorities, he fell in love with a girl whom some 
called Catharine, others Rose, but who is generally known as 
Vanozza. Tomasi says that Roderick "regarded her as a legit- 
imate wife;" but if any espousals were effected— which seems 
probable from the fact of her being identified by Ribadeneira 
("Life of F. Francis Rorgia," Madrid, 1G05,) as a Princess 
Farnese, one of a family not likely to brook an insult even 
from a Borgia, — they were certainly kept secret. In 1SS0 
Leonetti, a religious of the Pious Schools, published at Bo- 
logna an exhaustive work, highly commended by Leo XIII., 
contending that Caesar, Lucretia, etc., were not children of 
Cardinal Roderick Borgia, but either of some Borgia espec- 
ially loved by him, or of a brother who remained in Spain, 



Pope Alexander VI. 9 

much use of his son Caesar; and thus, in the eyes 
of posterity, he has shared the odium of that son's 
crimes. 

Roderick Llancol was born on January 1, 1431, 
at Xativa, in the diocese of Valencia, in Spain. 
When his maternal uncle, Alfonso Borgia, was ele- 
vated to the papacy under the name of Calixtus III. 
in 1455, the Llangol family assumed the name and 
arms of the Borgias, and only as such are they 
known in history. The young Roderick was noted 
for talent, and his first choice of profession was the 
bar, but he soon entered on the career of arms. 
Called to Rome by his uncle, and having evinced 
great aptitude for the business of a court, Roderick 
accepted offers of preferment, and was made suc- 
cessively commendatory Archbishop of Valencia, 
Cardinal-Deacon, and Vice-Chancellor of the Ro- 
man Church. At this period, at least, his con- 
duct must have been exemplary ; for a contempo- 
rary writes that his fellow cardinals were "much 
pleased to have in their midst one who surpassed 
all in an abundance of gifts."* And Duboulai, 



or of a son of his brother, the Perfect of Eome. When their 
father had died, and Vanozza had remarried, these children 
were cared for by Roderick. The arguments of Leonetti seem 
to us irrefutable. Certainly, the only plausible contradiction 
he experienced — that of M. de l'Epinois, in the Bevue des 
Etudes Historiques for April, 1881, — was triumphantly rebutted 
by the Canon J. Morel, in the Univers of July 14, 1881. One 
thing, at any rate, is certain: no proof can be given that Va- 
nozza ever appeared in Rome during Roderick's career there, 
whether as Cardinal or as Pope. 

* "MS. Life of Roderick Borgia, under the name of 
Alexander VI.," in the Casanatensian (Minerva) Library at 
Rome. 



10 Pope Alexander VI. 

who says that "if the memory of Borgia had per- 
ished we would not know how corrupt a man can 
be," admits that during his long cardinalate of 
thirty-five years Eoderick never gave any public 
scandal.* The rigid Sixtus IV. (1471-84) appointed 
him legate in Spain and Portugal; and the Cardi- 
nal of Pavia, a man of recognized sanctity, wrote 
to him during this legation: "I advise you to re- 
turn . . . your influence here is sovereign . . . 
by your persuasion and wise opposition you can 
render great service to the Holy See." This same 
Cardinal of Pavia slightly blamed Roderick for his 
ambition and a love of pomp, but he predicted that 
he would become Pope.j 

The manners of Borgia were grand and fascinat- 
ing, J and even Guicciardini credits him with rare 
powers of penetration, great tact and diplomatic 
talent. Raphael and James of Volterra, and Peter 
Martyr of Anghiera, § waste no praise on Roderick, 
but they find in him vast genius and profundity of 
thought. Egidius of Viterbo admires his eloquence 
as natural and irresistible, his activity as indefati- 
gable, and his sobriety as exemplary. || Tomasi de- 
clares that whoever observed the Cardinal could see 
that his genius marked him for empire. In 1476, 



* "Life of Alexander VI." 

f Epist. 514, 670, 678. and in "Additions to Aldoin." 

% Philip of Bergamo says that in him "there was a celestial 
appearance very becoming to his name and office." 

§ Not to be confounded with Peter Martyr (Vermiglio) of 
Lucca, the Augustinian apostate who lectured at Oxford, 
1547-53. 

|| This sobriety is admitted by Koscoe, loc.'cit. See also 
Paris, "Diary," at year 1506. 



Pope Alexander VI. 11 

having been appointed Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, 
Roderick received Holy Orders. 

And here we must observe that if the reader has 
imagined that the offspring born to Roderick before 
this date (and there was none after it) was necessa- 
rily sacrilegious, he has been deceived by the title 
of cardinal, which the Pope now confers, in accord- 
ance with the present discipline of the Church, only 
upon persons in at least deacon's Orders. At the 
time of which we are treating the cardinalitial scar- 
let did not always presuppose sacred Orders ; Maz- 
arin and many other cardinals never received them. 
Nor did Roderick's archiepiscopate of Valencia, 
confered on him in his youth, entail upon him the 
necessity of taking Orders. His prelacy was merely 
"commendatory," — that is according to a detest- 
able custom of the day, he enjoyed the emoluments 
of the benefice.* 

After the obsequies of Pope Innocent VIII. 
twenty-three cardinals entered into conclave, and 
after five days of deliberation raised Roderick 
Borgia to the Chair of Peter, on August 11, 1492. 
As the^ foes of Borsria have tried to fasten the 
stigma of simony on this conclave, it is well to note 



* The acting beneficiary was supposed, of course, to be 
above reproach; the commendatory, especially in cases of 
royal patronage, was too often a scandal. The title of abbe, 
abbate, now given on the European Continent to all secular 
priests, was in those days adopted by a horde of pei fumed 
gallants, who hung around the court in the enjoyment or ex- 
pectancy of some abbacy "in commandant." One must there- 
fore be careful not to credit the priesthood with every curled 
darling of an abbe of whom he reads in works of that time. 



12 Pope Alexander VI. 

its members. The cardinal-bishops were: Eoderick 
Borgia, then Bishop of Porto; Oliver Caraffa, 
Archbishop of Naples, whom even Roscoe styles a 
man of great integrity; Julian della Rovere, the 
future "Moses of Italy," as Julius II.; Baptist 
Zeno, Bishop of Tusculum, whose piety and inde- 
pendence, according to Ciacconius, was remarkable ; 
John Michiele, Bishop of Palestrina and Verona, 
who, says the Cardinal of Pavia, was learned, pious, 
and the friend of the poor; George d'Acosta, 
Archbishop of Lisbon, and therefore, by national 
rivalry, a political enemy of Borgia. The cardinal- 
priests were: John dei Conti, venerated by all 
Rome;* Paul Fregoso, Archbishop of Genoa, and 
thrice doge; Lawrence Cibo and Anthony Pallavi- 
cini, Genoese; Scalefetano, Bishop of Parma; 
Ardicino della Porta, whose virtues even Infessura 
praises; Gherardo, Patriarch of Venice, — a holy 
Camaldolese monk, who died at Terni on his way 
home, but whom Infessura represents as having 
sold his vote to Borgia for five thousand ducats, 
and as therefore deprived, on his return to Venice, 
of all his benefices. The cardinal-deacons were: 
Francis Piccolomidi, afterward Pope Pius III., 
lauded by Roscoe; Raphael Riario, leader of the 
Rovere party; Ascinao Sforza, brother of the Moro, 
Duke of Milan, and excessively praised by Paul 
Jovius; Frederick da San Severino; Colonna; 
Orsini ; Savelli, and John dei Medici, afterward 
Pope Leo X. 



* Garimbertus, b. iv, ch. 3. 



Pope Alexander VI. 13 

The new Pontiff assumed the name of Alexander 
VI. , — a name famous, thought Roscoe, as " a scourge 
of Christendom, and the approbrium of the human 
race." Probably no new Pontiff ever received so 
much flattery as that accorded to Alexander VI., at 
his coronation ; probably such wonderful deeds were 
never expected from any Pope as those princes and 
peoples awaited from him. The orators of the Italian 
States all vied in their congratulations with Tigrini 
of Lucca, who said that Christendom had a guaran- 
tee of its hopes in the Pontiff's many virtues and 
profound learning; and Nardi, a famous Florentine 
historian, wrote shortly afterward that everywhere 
it was thought "that God had chosen this prince as 
His peculiar instrument to effect something wonder- 
ful in His Church, so great were the expectations 
universally conceived." And yet Roscoe asserts 
that "when the intelligence of this event was dis- 
persed through Italy, where the character of Rod- 
erick Borgia was well known, a general dissatisfac- 
tion took place." 

We cannot enter into the details of this eventful 
pontificate, but we shall touch briefly on the reputed 
simoniacal nature of Roderick's election, and on 
the charge that he met his death by poison — his 
own weapon turned by Providence against himself. 
Rinaldi, the continuator of Barinio, is chiefly re- 
sponsible for the opinion prevalent, until very re- 
cent times, concerning the purity of the conclave 
of 1492. If, instead of blindly relying on Infessura 
and his copyist Mariana, this annalist had consulted 
contemporary testimony less suspicious than that of 



14 Pope Alexander VI. 

Infessura, he would have been less severe toward 
this conclave. Michael Fernus, whom Gregorovius 
calls "by no means a fanatical Papist," says that "in 
electing this Pontiff the cardinals showed that they 
had realized the appropriateness of the advice given 
them by Leonetti" in his funeral sermon on Inno- 
cent VIII.* It was Borgia's merit, therefore, and 
not simoniacal practices, that procured, through 
Fernus, his elevation. 

Sigismund dei Conti di Foligno tells us that "the 
qualities of Cardinal Roderick caused his brethren to 
esteem him as worthy of the Supreme Pontificate." 
Hartmann Schedel, author of the "Nuremberg 
Chronicle," published in 1493, ascribes the election 
of Roderick to his "learning, excellent conduct, and 
great piety." Porcius, a contemporary Auditor of 
the Rota, says : "He was unanimously elected, unan- 
imously confirmed. Concerning this election I shall 
say only this : its principal authors were those same 
cardinals who had hitherto resisted all of Roderick's 
undertakings, both public and private. "f Some of 



* Leonetti, Bishop of Concordia, had thus counselled the 
Sacred College : "As yet we know not whom God calls to suc- 
ceed Innocent VIII. ; what man is destined to avert the dan- 
gers menacing us. . . . Elect a man whose past life is a 
guarantee; one who, according to the advice of St. Leo, has 
spent his days in the practice of virtue, and who merits the 
elevation because of his labors and the integrity of his mor- 
als; one without ambition, wise and holy; in a word, one 
worthy of being the Vicar of Jesus Christ." If it was follow- 
ing this advice to elect Borgia, then the Borgia whom Fernus 
knew was not the acquaintance of Roscoe, Gregorovius, etc. 

f "Commentary of Jerome Porcius, Roman Patrician and 
Auditor of the Pvota" 1493. 



Pope Alexander VI. 15 

these cardinals were devoted to Julian della Rovere, 
Roderick's competitor in the conclave; others were 
on the brink of the grave ; but, with the exception 
of five — who, according to Burkhard, had declared 
that i 'votes should not be purchased," — none de- 
nounced the alleged simony. And even these five 
voted for Borgia. But Infessura tells us that "it is 
said" that, in order to secure the votes of Ascanio 
Sforza and his friends, Roderick sent, during the 
conclave, four mules, laden with treasure to Sforza' s 
palace. It is strange, remarks Clement, that the 
indiscretion which revealed this transaction did not 
betray it to the brigands who were, just then, in pos- 
session of the streets of Rome. But Manfredo Man- 
fredi, ambassador of Ferrara to the court of Florence, 
writes to the Duchess Eleonora that it can not be 
supposed that Cardinals Colonna, Savelli, and Or- 
sini, would have voted for Borgia unless seduced by 
money; and Manfredi supports his charge by de- 
tailing the benefices given to these cardinals by 
Alexander the very moment of his enthronization. 
Well, where is the indication of simony in these 
appointments ? The positions were necessarily to be 
filled. The chancery, the abbey of Subiaco, given 
respectively to Sforza and Colonna, had lost, the first 
its titular, the second its commendatory; and we do 
not hear that the other benefices and fiefs were not 
vacant. Before dismissing this charge of simony we 
must allude to a discovery made by some Protestant 
polemics, and lately revived by a ministerial ranter 
of some notoriety, to the effect that since the death 
of Innocent VIII. there have been no legitimate 



16 Pope Alexander VI. 

Popes, even according to Roman principles. A 
papal decree nullifies any election procured by 
simony; therefore, all appointments of cardinals 
made by a simonical Pope are null; therefore, there 
has been no legitimate conclave since Alexander's 
delinquency. A mare's-nest indeed ; for the adduced 
decree was issued by Julius II. on January 19, 1505, 
thirteen years after Alexander's alleged simony. 

It has been asserted that both Alexander VI. and 
Csesar Borgia were poisoned, the former fatally; 
that, through either error or treachery, they partook 
of a deadly drug, which they had prepared for cer- 
tain cardinals who were hostile to their projects. 
Ranke, whom it is the fashion to praise as a wise 
investigator, gives credence to this fable; Roscoe 
rejects it. Now, in the Ducal Library of Ferrara 
there is a manuscript history by Sardi, a contem- 
porary of Guicciardini and Paul Jovius, wherein the 
author speaks of ten letters written by their agents 
to Duke Hercules of Ferrara and the Cardinal 
d'Este, in which it is shown that our Pontiff died 
of tertian fever, then rampant in Rome. i ' Attacked 
by this fever on August 10 [1503], he was relieved 
neither by bleeding nor by use of manna, and he 
expired on the night we mentioned [August 18]. 
After death the body became swollen and blackened, 
owing to the putrefaction of the blood; and hence 
there originated, among such as knew not the cause 
of these appearances, a rumor that the Pope had 
been poisoned." 

In a manuscript "Diary" of Burkhard, preserved 
in the Corsini Library, may be read the following : 



Pope Alexander VI. 17 

"On Saturday, August 12, 1503, the Pope fell ill; 
and in the evening, about the twenty -first or twenty- 
second hour, there came a fever which continually 
remained. On Tuesday, August 15, thirteen ounces 
of blood were drawn from him, and there super- 
vened a tertian fever. On Thursday, August 17, at 
the twelfth hour, he took some medicine ; and on 
Friday, August 18, he confessed to the Lord Peter, 
Bishop of Culm, who then celebrated Mass in his 
presence, and after his own Communion gave the 
Holy Eucharist to the Pope, who sat up in bed. 
There were present five cardinals. . . . At the ves- 
per hour, having received Extreme Unction from 
the Bishop of Culm, he expired. " 

And, strange to say, Voltaire is very firm in as- 
cribing Alexander's death to natural causes. Speak- 
ing of the report of poison,* the cynic says: "All 
the enemies of the Holy See have believed this 
horrible tale ; I do not, and my chief reason is that 
it is not at all probable. The Pope and his son may 
have been wicked, but they were not fools. It is 
certain that the poisoning of a dozen cardinals would 
have rendered father and son so execrable that 
nothing could have saved them from the fury of the 
Romans and all Italy. The crime, too, was directly 
contrary to the views of Csesar. The Pope was on 
the verge of the grave, and Borgia could cause the 
election of one of his own creatures ; would he gain 



* "Complete Works," vol. xx ("Hist. Miscel.," vol. 1), p. 
241; edit. Paris, 1818.— "Customs and Spirit of Nations," ft, 
p. 445. — "Dissertation on the Death of Henry IV," 



18 Pope Alexander VI. 

the Sacred College by murdering a dozen of its 
members ? ' ' 

Again, contends Voltaire — on whom, for rarity's 
sake, it is a pleasure to reply ; — if after Alexander's 
death the cause of the catastrophe had transpired, 
surely it would have been learned by those whom 
he had tried to murder. Would they have allowed 
Caesar to enter peaceably into possession of his 
father's wealth? And how could Caesar, almost 
dying, according to the story, go to the Vatican to 
secure the hundred thousand ducats? They say 
that Caesar, after the accident, shut himself in the 
stomach of a mule; for what poison is that a 
remedy? Finally, Pope Julius II., an unrelenting 
foe of the Borgias, held Caesar in his power for a 
long time, and he never charged him with the sup- 
posed crime. Well, therefore, did Voltaire ex- 
claim: "I dare to say to Guicciardini: Europe 
has been deceived by you, as you were deceived by 
your passion. You were an enemy of the Pope, 
and you believed your hatred too readily." 

And now a word on Alexander VI. as Pontiff. 
The assassination of the Duke of Gandia (1497) 
produced a profoundly religious impression on his 
mind; he even thought of abdicating the Pontificate 
in order to conciliate the divine mercy. Deterred 
by Ferdinand the Catholic, he resolved to become 
a more worthy Pope, and as a first step he began 
to correct many abuses which had crept into the 
ecclesiastical administration. Among the abuses 
brought to light by an opposite commission was a 



Pope Alexander VI. 19 

systematic series of forgeries, or rather of supposi- 
titious issue of dispensations in which rascality the 
chief offender was found to have been Archbishop 
of Cosenza, Bartholomew Florida, the Secretary of 
Briefs.* Much good was effected by this commis- 
sion, as Paul III. afterward indicated. Upon one 
point the zeal of Alexander was worthy of his po- 
sition. As a defender of the faith he was never 
remiss. One of his first efforts was for the pacifi- 
cation of Bohemia, then ravaged by the Hussites; 
and it was owing to the kindness which he substi- 
tuted for the harshness of his predecessors that 
soon the scourge vanished. 

In 1501 Alexander issued his Bull, "Inter Mul- 
tiplies ," against the printing and reading of bad 
books. One of the most importent Bulls issued 
by this Pontiff was the "Inter Coetera" in 1493, 
whereby he drew a line of demarcation, which was 
to form, from pole to pole, the limit of the Spanish 
and Portuguese possessions in the lately discovered 
New World. It required no small amount of dar- 
ing to proclaim, as he thereby equivalently did, 
the rotundity of the earth, — a truth which then, 
and for centuries afterward, no scientific academy 
would have unhesitatingly patronized. The enemies 
of the Holy See have affected to regard this par- 
tition as a crime; indeed, Marmontel termed it 
"the greatest of all the crimes of Borgia." But 



* Florida confessed his guilt, was deposed, degraded, and 
imprisoned for life, on a diet of bread and water, in Castle 
San Angelo, 



20 Pope Alexander VI. 

Alexander simply exercised that right of arbitration 
which at that time all Christendom admitted as res- 
ident in the incumbent of the papal throne.* 



* Many authors illustrate their theory of Pope Alexander's 
immorality by alleging the revolting orgy said to have been 
celebrated in honor of the prospective marriage of Lucretia 
with the Duke of Ferrara — a banquet, etc., at which we are 
asked to fancy as participants the aged Pontiff, Csesar, Lucre- 
tia, and fifty respectable (honestae) prostitutes. Gordon 
quotes from the true or false Burkhard as follows : "Dominica 
ultima mensis Octobris in sero fecerunt coenam cum duce Valen- 
tinensi in camera sua in palatio Apostolico, quinquaginta mere- 
trices honestae, cortegianae nuncupatae. . . . Papa, duce, et 
Lucretia sorore sua, praesentibus et aspicientibus ." 
Truly these females were honestae beyond the want of that ilk, 
and the favored servants were gems indeed, when all Rome 
did not ring, the next day, with the echoes of such bacchanalia. 
Excepting Burkhard, if indeed, he speaks in the cited quota- 
tion, not one contemporary, not one of those chroniclers who 
dilate so circumstantially on all the festivities given at the 
Vatican in honor of Lucretia's espousals, says a word of what 
would have been a mine of wealth to a gossiper. And why 
such silence on the part of the Ferrarese envoys who were 
then residing in the Vatican, awaiting the convenience of 
Lucretia, to conduct her to their royal master as a bride? They 
wrote every day to their sovereign, and we have their dispatches. 
Why, again, silence on the part of the secret agent sent by 
the Marchioness of Mantua, sister of the future bridegroom, 
who kept his mistress informed as to the most trivial incidents 
of the papal court? 



THE ALLEGED ANTE-MORTEM FUNERAL 
OF CHARLES V. 

The thought of abdication first took possession 
of the mind of Charles V. in 1535, after the suc- 
cessful issue of his expedition against Tunis, and 
not, as is generally asserted, at a time when re- 
verses had disgusted him with human ambitions. 
This is shown by his own remarks to Lourenco Pires 
de Tavora, Portuguese envoy at his court,* and to 
the monks of San Yuste.f He was then only forty 
years of age, and at the height of his power. But 
not until 1542 did he manifest his design to the 
Cortes of Aragon,J and not before 1553 did he 
begin the necessary preparations. From among 
many places which seemed fitted, naturally, spirit- 
ually, and artistically, to furnish his tired and then 
ascetically inclined mind a soothing and profitable 
retreat, he selected the Hieronymite Monastery of 
San Yuste in Estremadura ; § and as he did not 
propose to become a monk, or even to follow the 



* Mignet, "Charles-Quint, son Abdication, et son Se^'our 
au Monastere de Yuste," p. 6, n. 1; Paris, 1854. 

t Sepulveda, "Opera," vol. ii, b. 30; Madrid, 1740. 

t Ribadeneyra, "Vida del Padre Francisco de Borja," c. 
13; Madrid, 1605. 

§ This Spanish congregation was approved by Pope Gregory 
XI. in 1374. Its first members had belonged to the Third Or- 
der of St. Francis, and they now adopted the rule of St. Augus- 

21 



22 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 

community life, as is generally believed, and as he 
could not expect the religious to associate familiarly 
with his retainers, he gave orders, in 1553, for the 
construction of a becoming habitation contiguous to 
the monastery. In this edifice he could preserve 
his own independence, and, while respecting that of 
the monks, he could occasionally enjoy their com- 
panionship ; while his proximity to the church en- 
abled him, when so disposed, to join in the offices 
of the choir. 

On October 25, 1555, Charles resigned his crowns 
of Naples, Sicily, and Milan in favor of his son 
Philip. On January 17, 1556, he ceded to the 
same Philip the crown of Spain, and all his other 
dominions in the Old and the New World; and on 
September 7 of the same year he resigned the im- 
perial sceptre, presuming, in defiance of the rights 
of the Holy See, to do so in favor of his brother, 
Ferdinand of Austria.* On February 3, 1557, 
Charles arrived at San Yuste, accompanied by only 
twelve domestics, and here he constantly resided 
during the remaining nineteen months of his life. 
He generally assisted at the Office, and at the High 



tine. Their chief houses are those of St. Lawrence at the Es- 
curial, St. Isidore in Seville, and this of St. Justus. Another 
congregation of Hieronymites was founded in Italy in 1377 by 
the Blessed Peter Gambacorti of Pisa. 

* Pope Paul IV. refused to acknowledge Ferdinand's claim 
to the crown of the Holy Koman Empire; for the consent of 
the Pontiff, the suzerain of that Empire, had not been obtained 
by Charles Y. for his action. Ferdinand, like all presumptive 
heirs to the Empire, had been elected "King of the Romans" 



Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 23 

Mass which was celebrated every morning in the 
church. He frequently communicated, and on the 
Fridays of Lent he joined the monks in taking the 
discipline. Much of his time was spent in the study 
of mechanics and in clockmaking; and it is narrated 
that one day, when he had failed to make two 
clocks agree, he moralized: "And how foolish it 
was in me to think that I could produce uniformity 
in so many nations, differing so much in race, lan- 
guage and character ! " 

During the early summer of 1558 the health of 
the Emperor caused disquiet to his attendants. Ac- 
cording to two Hieronymite chronicles, which have 
been followed by most historians, and highly em- 
bellished by Eobertson, the last illness of Charles 
V. was preceded, if not caused, by one of the most 
extraordinary ceremonies which any mind, sane or 
insane, could conceive. The Prior Martin de Angulo 
narrates that the monarch observed one day to an 
attendant that he could not devote two thousand 
crowns, which he had saved, to a more worthy 
object than his own funeral ; he added : "In travel- 
ing it is better to have light in front of rather than 



(1532), and had been confirmed by Pope Clement VII.; but 
Paul IV. declared that a "King of the Romans" could succeed, 
ordinarily, to the Empire only by the death of its incumbent. 
The cases of resignation or deprivation, insisted the Pontiff, 
had always depended on the will of the Holy See, and only the 
Pontiff could, in such cases, name the new Emperor. Again, 
the resignation of Charles was null, it not having been made in 
the hands of the Pope. However, Pope Pius IV. deemed it 
prudent, in 1560. to recognize Ferdinand as Emperor. 



24 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 

behind one's self." It was then, says the Prior, 
that the Emperor gave orders for the obsequies of 
his wife, his parents, and himself. Here we must 
note that Sandoval, whom historians generally cite 
in proof of this strange event, does indeed report 
the above remarks as made by Charles V. ; * but as 
he says nothing about the anticipatory obsequies of 
the Emperor having been celebrated, we may safely 
conclude that he gave no credit to the tale. In fact, 
Sandoval tells us that part of these same two thou- 
sand crowns saved by the monarch were ultimately 
used to defray the expenses of the real funeral. 
But there is another testimony which enters more 
into details. 

An anonymous Hieronymite, whose manuscript 
was probably copied by Siguenzaf (another author- 
ity adduced in favor of the truth of the story in 
question), and published also by Grachard,J narrates 
that while Charles was still in perfect health he 
caused Requiems to be offered in his presence on 
three successive days — August 29, 30, and 31, — for 
the souls of his father, mother, and wife; and that 
on the last day he called for his confessor, Juan de 
Eegola, and asked him : "Do you not think, Father, 
it would be well, now that I have done my duty by 
my relatives, if I were to cause my own funeral to 
be celebrated, and thus contemplate what will soon 



* "Vida del Emperador Carlos V. en Yuste," vol. ii, §3. 
t "Historia del Orden de San Geronimo," p. 3, b. i, c. 308. 
% "Retraite et Mort de Charles-Quint," vol. i, Appendix C. 



Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 25 

be my own condition?" Father Juan replied in 
an evasive manner; but, continues the anonymous 
monk, the Emperor pressed his confessor as to 
whether the proposed obsequies would profit him, 
even though still on earth. "Certainly, sire," 
Father Juan is represented as answering; "for the 
good works which one performs in life are of more 
merit and much more satisfactory than those done 
for him after his death. Would to God all of us 
had such excellent intentions as those announced 
by your Majesty ! " 

Thereupon, continues the chronicler, "the Em- 
peror commanded that everything should be made 
ready to celebrate his obsequies that evening. A 
catafalque, surrounded by torches, was arranged in 
the church. All the attendants of his Majesty, in 
full mourning, and the pious monarch himself, also 
in mourning garments and with a candle in his 
hand, came to celebrate his funeral and to see him 
buried. The spectacle brought tears to the eyes of 
all, and they could not have cried more if the Em- 
peror had really died. As for his Majesty, after 
his funeral Mass he made the offering of his candle 
in the hands of the celebrant, as though tie had al- 
ready resigned his soul into the hands of God. 
Such symbolical actions were customary among the 
early Christians. Then, without waiting for the 
afternoon of August 31 to pass, the Emperor called 
his confessor, and told him how happy he felt now 
that he had celebrated his funeral." The anony- 
mous monk then tells us how the imperial physician, 
Mathys, discouraged the continuation of the medi- 



26 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 

tation in which Charles was buried, and how his 
Majesty suddenly experienced a chill. "This was 
on the last day of August, at about four of the 
night. Mathys felt the Emperor's pulse, and dis- 
covered some change. Charles was therefore borne 
to his chamber, and from that time his malady 
rapidly gained force." 

When a Hieronymite monk expects us to credit 
this fantastical story, we need not wonder that 
Robertson (a Protestant of more than ordinary 
prejudices, and, what is more derogatory from any 
claim to impartiality, a royal historiographer in 
England,) repeats, colors, and renders it more 
acceptable to the credulous yearners for papistical 
absurdities, by his own exaggerations and even 
unwarranted additions. "The English do not love 
Charles V.," remarks Barthelemy; "Protestants 
love him less; and finally, a writer is not a 
historiographer with impunity. Independence and 
impartiality can scarcely be found in one who fills 
that position." Again, Robertson is too apt to 
deduce conclusions such as are formed by the 
Voltarian school; though he does not betray the 
Satanic spirit of these gentry, "he has all their 
coldness," observes Cantu, "and he reflects in the 
same manner."* As to the reliability of his "His- 



* "Storia Universale," b. xvii, c. 20. — We are surprised on 
finding that Cantu receives this story as truth, comparing the 
fantasy of Charles with the "melancholy" freak of the Em- 
peror Maximilian I., who, disgusted with his newly-built pal- 
ace at Innsbruck, resolved on providing a better one; and ac- 
cordingly sent for a coffin and all the paraphernalia of a 
funeral, and kept them always with him. 



Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 27 

tory of Charles V.," one of the most impartial his- 
torical writers our country has yet produced — Henry 
Wheaton, a Protestant — pronounces that it is full 
of errors.* 

According to Robertson, the Emperor suffered 
from gout so intensely about six months before his 
death, that from that time there appeared scarcely 
any traces of that healthy and masculine reasoning 
power which had distinguished him; a timid and 
servile superstition took possession of his mind, and 
he passed nearly all the time in chanting hymns 
with the monks. Eestlessness, diffidence, and that 
fear which ever accompanies superstition, continues 
Robertson, diminished in his eyes the merit of all 
the good he had performed, and induced him to 
devise some new and extraordinary act of piety, 
which would draw upon him the favor of Heaven. 
He resolved to celebrate his funeral before his death, 
and caused a catafalque to be erected in the church. 
His domestics repaired thither, carrying black can- 
dles in their hands, and he himself, wrapped in a 
shroud, was laid in the coffin. The Office for the 
Dead was chanted by both Charles and the assem- 
blage, as well as the plentiful tears of all would 
allow. At the end of the ceremony all, save the 
chief participant in the coffin, left the church, and 
the doors were closed. Then the poor victim of 
superstition emerged from his coffin and returned to 



* See his letter to the Secretary of the National Institute at 
Washington (1843). 



£8 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Cli arles V. 

his apartments. Probably on account of the impres- 
sion produced on his mind by the fancied contact 
with death, he was seized, concludes Eobertson, with 
his fatal illness on the following day. 

Were it not for the too pronounced pathos of 
this Eobertsonian climax of Charles coming out of 
his coffin, climbing down the catafalque, and creep- 
ing home stealthily, lest his too lively appearance 
should dispel the impression supposed to have been 
produced, this scene would furnish elements most 
attractive for some ambitious playwright and en- 
terprising manager. As for historical value, the 
picture of Charles in his shroud and coffin, as well 
as that of his being left alone in the church after 
the ceremony, has none ; the Hieronymite chronicles, 
the only sources on which Eobertson can draw, are 
precise in representing Charles as assisting at the 
ceremony, candle in hand, and as giving his candle 
to the celebrant at the close. 

We shall merely allude to the assertion that 
during the last six months of his life the Emperor 
had lost his wonted mental acumen ; that, in fact, 
he was little better than insane. Authentic docu- 
ments are adduced by Mignet* to show that, to the 
very last, Charles took an active and directive 
interest in the affairs of his late Empire ; and that 
he was frequently consulted, especially as to Spanish 
matters, by Philip II. Let us rather see whether 



* Loc. cit.—See also Stirling's "Cloister Life of Charles V.," 
1852. 



Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 29 

there is any truth in the presumed Hieronymite 
narration. We say " presumed;" for it seems 
incredible that any Catholic writer could have 
penned the tale. Protestant polemics regale us, 
even unto nausea, with arguments against the re- 
liability of "monkish chronicles;" but if ever any 
such chronicle merited distrust, nay, to be despised — 
and there are such, — these by the Prior Angulo and 
his anonymous Brother are in that category ; and if 
they are authentic, their authors deserved what- 
ever severe punishment monastic discipline and the 
proper tribunals — ecclesiastical and lay — could in- 
flict on religious who elaborated a baseless charge of 
sacrilege against an entire community. 

To have sung the Office of the Dead for the 
benefit of a living person would have been a solemn 
mockery, profanation; but we are told that the 
monks of San Yuste offered a Requiem Mass for 
the repose of the soul of, and in the presence of, the 
living Emperor.* However, this reflection on the 
nature of the ceremony alleged to have been per- 



* "How can we admit that this service was performed? 
The Church reserves it for the dead, never applying it to the 
living. Celebrated without an object, it would lose its efficacy 
with its only motive, and would become a kind of profanation. 
The Church prays for those who cannot any longer pray for 
themselves; she offers for their intention that Sacrifice in 
which their condition will not allow them to take part. This 
pious and solemn association with the soul in its passage from 
transient to eternal life has its merit and grandeur only when 
it is real. Moreover, Charles V. well knew that it is much 
better for one's self to pray than to be the object of another's 



30 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 

formed would not, of itself, compel us to reject the 
tale as a fabrication. But there are many good 
reasons why this course should be taken. The 
anonymous monk states that the Emperor caused 
Requiems to be sung on August 29, 30, and 31, for 
the souls of his father, mother, and wife; that after 
the last function he ordered everything to be pre- 
pared for his own funeral service on that evening; 
and he expressly states that not only the Office was 
chanted, but Mass was celebrated at that service. 
Here, then, we have Mass celebrated, in the Western 
Church in the sixteenth century, in the evening! 
This is an absurdity. Nor can it be alleged that 
probably the Office alone was recited at that time, 
and that the Requiem was celebrated on the follow- 
ing morning, September 1 ; for the writer says that 
after the Mass the monarch experienced a chill, and 
was removed to his apartments; adding also that 
"this happened on the last day of August, at about 
four of the night." 

Another intrinsic evidence of falsity is furnished 
by the magnitude of the sum — two thousand crowns, 
— which the anonymous chronicler assigns for the 



prayers; much better to appropriate to one's self the Holy 
Sacrifice by Eucharistic Communion than to be indirectly as- 
sociated with it by a merciful attention of the Church. He 
had done so a fortnight before, and he did so again very soon." 
(Mignet, loc. cit., p. 414.) 

* "Four of the night" (that is, four hours after the even- 
ing Angelus) would be, as moderns measure time, about eleven 
in Spain, during August and September, 



Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 31 

expenses of the service in question. If we con- 
sider the metallic value of the Spanish crown of 
that day — eleven francs, — and then note its rel- 
ative buying capability, we must conclude that the 
alleged funeral cost more than twelve thousand 
dollars,* which is incredible. The only real ex- 
penses, since there was no royal pomp, etc., would 
have been that of candles and the honorarium, 
Sandoval says that these "two thousand crowns, 
saved by the Emperor," were afterward drawn upon 
for the real funeral ; and that six hundred of them 
were sent, just before the monarch's death and by 
his order, to Barbara Blomberg, the mother of Don 
John of Austria.f 

A third reason for rejecting the fable of the 
mock funeral is found by Mignet in the plrysical 
condition of Charles V. at the time when it is alleged 
to have been held. The letters of his physician 
and his secretary all show that he could not have 
withstood the fatigue of four consecutive functions. 
On the 15th of August, wishing to communicate, 
he had to be carried to the church, and he received 
the Blessed Sacrament in a sitting posture. On the 
the 24th the gout temporarily ceased from troubling 
him; but an eruption in the legs ensued, and he 
would scarcely have been able to participate in the 
supposed services of the 29th, 30th, and 31st. 
Charles V. was not of such calibre, spiritually 



* Barthelemy, "Erreurs et Mensonges," vol. iii, p. 142. 
f Log. cit., vol. ii., §3. Letter of Quijada to Philip II. ? 
October 12, 155§. 



32 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 

speaking, that he would have forced weak nature to 
obey his pious will, having himself carried to cere- 
monies at which his presence would have been su- 
perfluous. He was far removed from those saints 
who have asked to be laid on ashes to meet their 
deaths. And his occupations just at this time, 
as shown by his intimate attendants, manifest no 
extraordinary detachment from the affairs of earth ; 
still less do they indicate any of that semi-insane 
religiousness by which Kobertson would account for 
the commission of the freak under consideration. 
Down to the very day before the fatal attack (Sep- 
tember 1) he was engaged in business of state and 
in matters of family interest. Finally, neither the 
imperial physician nor the secretary, whose letters 
enter into the most trivial details of their master's 
life at San Yuste, especially where his health or re- 
ligious dispositions are concerned, say anything 
about this ante-mortem funeral. 



BRUNO AND CAMPANELLA. 

The Italian Government has permitted the erec- 
tion of a monument to Giordano Bruno in the capi- 
tal of the Christian world. We understand that 
the work is sufficiently artistic to bring no great 
discredit on the mistress of the fine arts; but, 
since its sole reason for existence is based on an 
insecure foundation, we are not surprised that the 
details of its design are not all true to history. It 
has been erected only because of the presumed fact 
that Bruno was done to death by the Papal authori- 
ties. To render it more impressive, and to illus- 
trate the eventful career of its subject, it presents 
to our contemplation some bas-reliefs of other 
alleged " martyrs to truth," suchasHuss, Servetus, 
Arnold of Brescia, and Campanella. 

Now it is by no means certain that Bruno was put 
to death. We know that in 1592 he was arrested 
by the State Inquisitors of Venice on the charge of 
heresy;* that after six years of imprisonment he 



* His denouncer, Giovanni Mocenigo, to whom he had 
taught his system of artificial memory, accused Bruno of 
styling the Trinity an absurdity ; of calling Transubstantiation 
a blasphemy, and of finding truth in no religious system. He 
had said that Christ seduced the Jews, that he died unwillingly, 
and that the apostles worked no miracles. According to him, 
there is no distinction of Persons in God. The words are in- 
finite and eternal. There is no punishment for sin; the soul, 

33 



34 Bruno and Campanella. 

was delivered to the Holy Office, or Roman Inquisi- 
tion, tried, (and perhaps) condemned to the stake 
on February 9, 1600. But was the sentence ex- 
ecuted, or, as frequently happened in similar cases, 
was Bruno burnt merely in ef^gj ? A letter pur- 
porting to be from an erudite German then in 
Rome, Gaspar Schopp,* describes the execution, 
but many good critics have denied the authenticity 
of this epistle. Again, Schopp is alone in his 
assertion. The Vatican Archives contain docu- 
ments of the trial, but not of the condemnation, nor 
is there any account of the execution ; whereas, in 
every similar case, both of these are detailed. 
Again, the "Relations" of the foreign ambassadors 
resident at the Holy See, which never omitted any 
such items, say nothing of this event. Not even in 
the correspondence of the Venetian Ambassador, 
the agent of that Government which must have felt 



produced by nature, passes to another creature. This world 
shows no true religion; the Catholic is the best, but it needs a 
reformation; and he (Bruno) will effect this with the aid of the 
King of Navarre, (Henry 1Y.) 

* Convinced of his errors by the study of Baronio's 
"Annals," this Lutheran scholar became a Catholic. Invited 
to Kome by Clement VIII., he wrote many phamplets in de- 
fence of Catholicism, the Papacy, etc. But he was very 
litigious, and was given to paradoxes. In his presumed letter 
he says of Bruno's errors: "The Inquisition did not impute 
Lutheran doctrines to him. He was charged with having com- 
pared the Holy Ghost to the soul of the world; Moses, the 
prophets, the apostles, and even Christ, to the pagan hiero- 
phants. He admitted many Adams and many Hercules. He 
believed in magic, or at least he upheld it, and taught that 
Moses and Christ practised it. Whatever errors have been 



Bruno and Campanella. 35 

an especial interest in the fate of Bruno, since it 
had initiated his downfall, do we find any allusion 
to the alleged catastrophe.* 

Cantu cites a MS. of the Medicean Archives (No. 
1608), dated at Eome on the very day of Bruno's 
trial, which narrates the burning of an apostate 
friar a few days before. Here some mention of 
Bruno's condemnation would naturally occur, but 
there is not a word. Finally, the celebrated Servite, 
Friar Paul Sarpi, who never missed an opportunity 
of attacking what he feigned to regard as Roman 
intolerance, Roman treachery, etc., although he 
continued this course for many years after the trial 
of Bruno, t and although his own position of antag- 
onism with the Roman Curia perforce kept him on 
the lookout for instances which might inculpate 
Rome and justify the recent rebellious conduct of 
Venice toward the Holy See, never alludes to the 
alleged fate of Bruno. The same silence is found 
in Ciacconio, Sandrini, Alfani, Manno, and Ossat, 
all of whom would scarcely have omitted to notice 



taught by the ancient pagans or by the most recent heretics 
were all advanced by this Bruno." (Cantu, "Illustri Itali- 
ani," art. "Bruno.") 

* The "Kelations" of the Venetian ambassadors to the 
home government are rightly regarded by historians as the 
most precious, both for detail and accuracy, of all available 
sources for a knowledge of the events of the time. 

f As late as December 6, 1611, we find Sarpi describing the 
execution at Rome (by strangling) of the French Abbe Dubois, 
for libels against the Jesuits, and claiming that the unfortunate 
had received a safe-conduct before journeying to Rome. At 
the same time he greatly decries Schopp, whom he describes 
as "meriting a greater punishment than burning in effigy.''' , 



36 Bruno and Campanella. 

so important an event, had it really occurred. And 
how is it that the "Martyrology" of the Protestants 
is also silent on this matter? Truly, Bruno was 
less a Protestant Christian than he was a Buddhist; 
but in those days, as in our own, any person of 
Christian ancestry who antagonized Rome, and did 
not avow himself a Jew or a pagan, was claimed for 
their own by the Protestants.* 

The Bruno monument places Huss, Arnold of 
Brescia, Servetus, and Campanella, in the same cate- 
gory with the Philosopher of Nola. There may be 
some general reason for so treating the Bohemian 
fanatic and the cut-throat of Brescia. The com- 
parison of Bruno with Servetus, the victim of Cal- 
vin, may be tolerated, with a smile at the designer's 
ungrateful disregard of the feelings of Protestants. 
But Campanella and Bruno! "Hyperion to a 
satyr!" Bruno was a Christian only by baptism; 
Campanella was ever a devout Catholic. Campa- 
nella, a martyr to science ! His devotion to science 
caused him no trouble more annoying than some 
cloister squabbles; politics, mere politics, involved 
him in serious difficulty. As well ascribe the fate 
of Savonarola to his zeal for morals. Campanella, 
a victim of the Inquisition ! His only relations 
with that tribunal came from its interposition to 
save him from the Neapolitan courts, which would 
have consigned him to the scaffold for high treason 
to the Spanish crown. 



* See Appendix for later information on Bruno's execu- 
tion. 



Bruno and Campanella. 37 

Campanella was born at Stilo, in the kingdom 
of Naples, in 1568. At the age of fourteen he 
entered the Dominican Order, and in the course of 
time became very distinguished in the public dis- 
putes on philosophical questions, which were then 
the fashion of the day in Italy. But his attacks on 
the peripatetics* procured him many enemies in 
his own Order, and in 1590 he sought the protec- 
tion of the Marquis Lavello, one of his Neapolitan 
admirers. During the next eight years we find 
him disputing at Koine and Florence, and teaching 
in the Universities of Pisa and Padua. In 1598 he 
returned to Stilo, and it was soon rumored that he 
was occupied in projects for the subversion of the 
Spanish domination. He frequently preached, and 
wrote that the year 1600 would unfold great 
changes in the kingdom ; that recent extraordinary 
inundations, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, 
prognosticated a coming reformation in both civil 
and ecclesiastical matters; that he was to be an in- 
strument of Providence in all this, for he "was 
born to abolish three great evils — tyranny, sophism, 
and hypocrisy; everything was in darkness when 



* "Italy produced the first school of philosophy of a 
modern character; for the school of Telesius soon followed 
that of the platonist Marsilio Ficino, and that of the per- 
ipatetic Pomponazzi. . . . How is it that the names of 
Campanella and Bacon are so diversely regarded : the latter as 
of one who opened the modern era, and the former scarcely 
remembered? Campanella devoted himself to all the know- 
able; Bacon confined himself to the natural sciences." Cantu, 
"Filosofia Moderna," §i. 



38 Bruno and Campanella. 

he struck the light." * He reasoned on several 
recent astronomical discoveries, and announced that 
his studies showed him the near advent of the reign 
of eternal reason in the life of humanity. f Great 
revolutions, he said, occur every eight centuries, 
the latest previous one having been the Incarnation 
of the World. 

Whether Campanella was the instigator or a 
tool was never made known ; but a conspiracy was 
formed against Spanish rule, and four bishops and 
three hundred friars of various orders were the 
leading spirits. Of the three processes of the trial 
now extant, one tends to show that the design was 
to establish a republic in Calabria ; the second in- 
sists that the kingdom was to be given to the Holy 
See; and the third indicates a wish to hand the 
country over to the Turks; but it is noteworthy 
that in the process finally extended in the Holy 
Office at Rome nearly all the previous witnesses 
retracted. When the conspiracy was discovered 
the viceroy's forces captured nearly all the leaders. 
Thelaics were hung, and the "privilegiumfori" con- 
signed the ecclesiastics, Campanella excepted, to 
the Inquisition \% the viceroy insisting on this 
exception, probably at the instigation of Campa- 



* "Poesie Filosonche." 

t "De Sensu Rerum et Magia," iv, 20. 

% Writing to Cardinal Farnese, Campanella says that his 
clerical comrades pleaded guilty to the charge of "rebelling 
in order to be free to become heretics." Had they answered 
only to the charge of treason, he says, "all would have been 
executed, without any appeal to the Pope." 



Bruno and Ca?npanelta. 39 

nella's private enemies. Confined in Castel Sant' 
Elmo for twenty-seven years, the Holy See again 
and again vainly endeavored to procure his release ; 
but Pope Paul V. , who sent Schopp to Naples for 
that purpose, succeeded in obtaining permission 
for him to correspond with his friends, and to re- 
ceive every convenience for literary work. Finally, 
Pope Urban VIII. availed himsef of the accusation 
of magical practices made against the philosopher, 
insisting that such a charge placed the case within 
the sole jurisdiction of the Inquisition; and he 
succeeded in obtaining the friars extradition. 

Campanella was at once enrolled in the Papal 
household, and an annual pension was assigned to 
him. Caressed by all that was learned in Rome, he 
passed several years in happy study ; but in 1634 
the Spanish residents, who continued to detest his 
name, made an open attack on the French Embassy 
where he was visiting, and tried to obtain possession 
of his person. He was saved by the Papal police, 
but by the advice of the Pontiff he at once betook 
himself to France. Cardinal Richelieu received 
him with open arms, and made him a counsellor of 
state. He was also elected president of the French 
Academy, lately founded by Richelieu. To the day 
of his death, on May 21, 1639, he continually cor- 
responded with Pope Urban VIII. What is there 
in this career to indicate the martyr to science, the 
victim of papal tyranny; in fine, the fit com- 
panion of Bruno as that unfortunate receives the 
ignorant or diabolic homage of so-called liberalism? 



40 Bruno and Campanella. 

We have said that Bruno is wrongly styled a 
Protestant. We never find him representing him- 
self as either Calvinist, Anglican, or Lutheran. 
While he resided in Geneva, the headquarters of 
Calvinism, he attended, he says, "the sermons of 
the Italian and French religionists. But when I 
was warned that I could not remain there long if I 
did not adopt the creed of the Genevans, I went to 
Toulouse. " He stayed but a short time in Tou- 
louse, "the Rome of the Garronne," only long 
enough to receive the doctor's cap, and to surprise 
both the Catholics and the Calvinists by his teach- 
ings. The year 1579 found him at Paris, satisfying 
Henry III. that his phenomenal memory was not 
the effect of magic, and lecturing at the Sorbonne. 
As yet no sign of Calvinism. During the three 
years that he spent in England he greatly lauded 
Queen Elizabeth, "the unique Diana, who is to us 
all what the sun is to the stars," but he manifested 
no leaning to Anglicanism. At Oxford he taught 
the movement of the earth ; and was obliged to de- 
part. Arriving in Germany, he was well received 
at Wittenberg, and he highly appreciated the toler- 
ation accorded by the Lutheran professors to him, 
"although of a different faith."* In fact, Bruno 
taught everywhere the Pythagorean system of the 
world, and an Eleatic pantheism dressed in Neo-~ 
Platonic forms, advancing both with a pride, or 
rather a vanity, which must have appeared ridiculous. 



* "Kon vestrse religionis dogmateprobatum." Thus in his 
work, "De lampade combinatoria." 



Bruno and OampaneUa. 41 

He announced himself to the Oxford dons as 
"doctor of the most elaborate philosophy; pro- 
fessor of the purest and most harmless wisdom; 
recognized by all the principal Academies of 
Europe; unknown only to barbarians; the weak- 
ener of sleeping geniuses; the tamer of presump- 
tious and recalcitrant ignorance ; a universal philan- 
thropist, as all his actions proclaim. One who 
loves an Italian no more than an Englishman, a 
man no more than a woman, a mitre no more than 
a crown, a lawyer no more than a soldier, the 
hooded no more than the hoodless ; but who loves 
him the most whose conversation is the most peace- 
ful, civil, and useful; one who cares not for an 
anointed head, or marked forehead, or clean hands, 
but only for the mind and for the cultured intellect ; 
one who is detested by hypocrites and by the prop- 
agators of insanity, but who is revered by the 
upright, and applauded by every noble genius." 
Could Cagliostro have excelled this as an adver- 
tisement ? 

But if Bruno was neither Catholic nor Protest- 
ant, his forced associate in the Boman monument 
was a profound Catholic, albeit an exceedingly in- 
tolerant one. He would have no dispute with an 
innovator. He would ask: "Who sent you to 
preach, God or the devil? If God, prove it by 
miracles." And if he fails, said Campanella, 
"burn him if you can. . . . The first error com- 
mitted (during the Lutheran movement) was in 
allowing Luther to live after the Diets of Worms 
and Augsburg ; and if Charles V. did so, as they 



4=2 Bruno and Qampanella 

say, in-order to keep the Pope in apprehension, and 
thus oblige him to succor Charles in his aspirations 
to universal monarchy, he acted against every rea- 
son of state policy ; for to weaken the Pontiff is to 
weaken all Christianity, the people soon revolting 
under pretext of freedom of conscience."* He 
counselled the King of Spain to have always two or 
three religions — Dominicans, Jesuits, or Francis- 
cans, — in his supreme council ; and every command- 
ing general, he said, should have a religious ad- 
viser. | Such sentiments must sound strange to 
the Italianissimi of to-day ; but they came natur- 
ally from Campanella, who thought that "the same 
constellation which drew fetid effluvia from the 
cadaverous minds of heretics, brought forth bal- 
samic exhalations from the exact minds of the 
founders of the Minims, Jesuits, Capuchins, etc. "J 
He advises all Governments to allow no Lutherans 
within their limits ; because, he contends, these sec- 
tarians deny the free-will of man, and can excuse 
crime by the plea that they are fated to sin.§ As 
for the Calvinist dogma of predestination, "it ren- 
ders all princes wicked, the people seditious, and 
theologians traitors." || 

The following passage, If if read by the committee 
before it accepted Ferrari's design for Bruno's 



* "Civitas Solis," c. 27. — "Delia Monarchia Spagnuola," 
c. 27. 

f "Aforismi Politici," passim. 

% Idem, 70. 

§ Idem, 84, 87. 

|| "Lettere," passim. 

% "Discorso II. sul Papato." 



Bruno and Campanella. 43 

j statue, would probably have caused its rejection : 
"The Papacy belongs to no one in particular, but to 
all Christendom, and whatever the Church pos- 
sesses is common to all. The Italians ought to 
encourage the wealth of religious corporations, be- 
cause it belongs to them all, and lessens the strength 
of Italy's rivals. . . . No Italian sovereign 
should aspire to a rule over the others, but all, 
whenever the direct line of succession becomes 
extinct, should proclaim the Roman Church heir to 
their dominions. Thus in course of time an Italian 
monarchy would be established. The Italian repub- 
lics ought to make a law that whenever they fall 
under the rule of tyrants their government devolves 
on the Roman Church." 

In reality, Campanella aimed at a reformation of 
the world, and by means of Catholicism. His en- 
thusiasm descried a near conversion of the nations, 
as prophesied by St. Bridget of Sweden, the Abbot 
Joachim, Dionysius the Carthusian, St. Vincent 
Ferrer, and St. Catherine of Siena, the last of whom 
had predicted that the sons of St. Dominic would 
carry the olive of peace to the Turks.* He de- 
clared that the day of Antichrist was near, if not 
already come, — "it is now here, or will come in 
1630 ;" and he "was born to combat the schools of 
Antichrist," which schools were everywhere active; 
for "where Mohammed and Luther do not rule, 
there dominate Machiavelli and politicians. "f 

*Campanella's words as given in a contemporary account 
of the Calabrese conspiracy, published in 1845 by Capialbi. — 
Cantu, "Illustriltaliani," art. "Campanella." 

t "Letter to the Pope and Cardinals." 



ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE 
MURDER OF HYPATIA. 

A few years ago the Rev. Charles Kingsley, £*n 
English writer of some reputation, saw fit to revive 
an ancient but often exploded calumny against one 
of God's saints. This author is a clergyman of the 
English Establishment, and being presumably as 
well as pretendedly a man of education, one would 
have expected from his pen at least a moderately 
appreciative treatment of the grand characters 
whom he selected to illustrate an important, though 
little understood, period of history. But, according 
to him, the great Patriarch of Alexandria "has 
gone to his own place. What that place is in his- 
tory, is but too well known ; what it is in the sight 
of Him unto whom all live forever, is no concern of 
ours. May He whose mercy is over all His works 
have mercy upon all, whether orthodox or unor- 
thodox, Papist or Protestant, who, like Cyril, begin 
by lying for the cause of truth ; and, setting off 
upon that evil road, arrive surely, with the Scribes 
and Pharisees of old, sooner or later, at their own 
place. True, he and his monks had conquered ; but 
Hypatia did not die unavenged. In the hour of 
that unrighteous victory the Church of Alexandria 
received a deadly wound. It had admitted and 
sanctioned those habits of doing evil that good may 

44 



St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 45 

come, of pious intrigue, and at last of open perse- 
cution, which are certain to creep in wheresoever 
men attempt to set up a merely religious empire, 
independent of human relationships and civil laws ; 
to establish, in short, a 'theocracy,' and by that 
very act confess a secret disbelief that God is ruling 
already." 

Such was not the judgment of Kingsley's fellow- 
sectarian, Cave,* nor of the Lutheran, John Albert 
Fabricius,f than whom Protestants have produced 
no critics more erudite. But it is the opinion ex- 
pressed by many Protestant polemics ; for St. Cyril 
| presided, in the name of the Roman Pontiff, at the 
Council of Ephesus (431), which confirmed to the 
Blessed Virgin the title of Mother of God.J It is 
also the judgment of Voltaire and the entire school 
of incredulists ; for St. Cyril triumphantly refuted 
the work of the Emperor Julian against Christianity. 



* "Lit. Hist.," article "Cyrillus." 

f "Bibl. Graeca," pt. iv, b. 5. 

% Writing to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Pope 
St. Celestine said : "We have deemed it proper that in so im- 
portant a matter we ourselves should be in some sort present 
among you, and therefore we have appointed our brother Cyril 
as our representative." And, writing to St. Cyril, the Pontiff 
says: "You will proclaim this sentence by our authority, 
acting in our place by virtue of our power; so that if JSTesto- 
rius, within ten days after his admonition, does not anathe- 
matize his impious doctrine, you will declare him deprived of 
communion with us, and you will at once provide for the needs 
of the Constantinopolitan Church." It is quite natural that 
Protestant polemics should be hostile to the memory of the 
great "Doctor of the Incarnation," who thus apostrophized 



46 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 

In the early part of the fifth century the great 
city of Alexandria in Egypt was still nearly one 
half pagan, and the Jewish population also was very 
large. No populace in the Empire was so turbulent 
and seditious, and therefore the emperors had in- 
vested the patriarchs with extensive civil authority, 
although the force at the prelates' disposal was not 
always sufficient to repress the disorders of the 
mob. In the year 413 St. Cyril was raised to the 
patriarchate, and was almost immediately involved 
in difficulty with Orestes, the imperial prefect. 
Often he conjured this officer on the Gospels to put 
an end to this enmity for the good of the city. 

At this time the chief school of pagan philosophy 
in Alexandria was taught by Hypatia, a beautiful 
woman, and of irreproachable morals. Among her 
hearers were many of the elite of paganism. The 
celebrated Synesius had been her pupil, and his 
letters show that, although he had become a Chris- 
tian bishop in 410 he still gloried in her friendship. 
But her most important scholar was the prefect 



the Blessed Virgin in the Council of Ephesus : "I salute thee, 
Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire universe! I 
salute thee, who didst enclose the Immense, the Incompre- 
hensible, in thy virginal womb! I salute thee, by whose means 
heaven triumphs, angels rejoice, demons are put to flight, the 
tempter is vanquished, the culpable creature is raised to 
heaven, a knowledge of truth is based on the ruins of idolatry! 
I salute thee, through whom all the churches of the earth have 
been founded, and all nations led to penance! I salute thee, 
in fine, by whom the only Son of God, the Light of the world, 
has enlightened those who were seated in the shadow of death ! 
Can any man worthily laud the incomparable Mary? " 



St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. ±7 

Orestes. It is difficult to determine what was the 
religion of this man. He himself, on the occasion 
of an attack on his life by some monks from Mt. 
Nitria, had proclaimed his Christianity, but his 
general conduct would inspire doubt of his sincerity ; 
and we may safely accept as probable the conjecture 
of the English novelist, that he was ready to renew 
the attempt of Julian the Apostate. The obstinacy 
of Orestes in refusing a reconciliation with their 
patriarch was ascribed by the whole Christian com- 
munity to the influence of Hypatia; and one day 
in the Lent of 415 a number of parabolani* and 
laics, led by one Peter the Reader and some Nitrian 
monks, fell upon the unfortunate philosopher as she 
was proceeding to her lecture hall, dragged her from 
her litter, hurried her to the great church of the 
Ceesareum, and there literally tore her to pieces. 

Such, in a few words, is the substance of the ac- 
count of this horrible event as given by the historian 
Socrates, f a writer contemporary with the great St. 
Cyril, and whom Kingsley professes to have scrupu- 
lously followed. But Socrates, hostile though he 



* These were an order of minor clerics, probably only ton- 
sured, who were deputed to the service of the sick both in 
hospitals and at home. Their name was derived from their 
constant exposure to danger. The first mention of them in a 
public document occurs in an ordinance of Theodosius II., in 
416; but they are here spoken of as having been in existence 
many years, and probably they were instituted in the time of 
Constantine. In course of time they became arrogant and sedi- 
tious, and were finally abolished. At Alexandria they num- 
bered six hundred, and were all appointed by the patriarch. 

f "Hist.Eccl.,"b. vii, §15. 



48 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 

ever shows himself to the holy patriarch, does not 
once insinuate that this prelate was the instigator 
of the crime; while the Anglican minister does 
imply that charge, and openly lays all responsibility 
for the foul deed on St. Cyril. 

Voltaire, the prince of incredulists, naturally 
gloats over one of the most delicious morsels ever 
furnished to his school. Having compared Hypatia 
to Madame Dacier, a learned classicist of his day, he 
asks us to imagine the French Carmelites contend- 
ing that the poem of "Magdalen," composed in 
1668 by Peter de Saint-Louis, one of their Order, 
was superior to "Iliad" of Homer, and insisting 
that it is impious to prefer the work of a pagan to 
that of a religious. Let us fancy, then, continues 
the Sage of Ferney, that the Archbishop of Paris 
takes the part of the Carmelites against the gov- 
ernor of the city, a partisan of Madame Dacier, 
who prefers Homer to F. Peter. Finally, let us 
suppose the Archbishop inciting the Carmelites to 
slaughter this talented woman in the Cathedral of 
Notre Dame. ' 'Such precisely, ' ' concludes Voltaire, 
"is the history of Hypatia. She taught Homer 
and Plato in Alexandria during the reign of 
Theodosius II. St. Cyril unleashed the Christian 
populace against her, as we are told by Damascius 
and Suidas, and as is satisfactorily proved by the 
most learned moderns, such as Brucker, La Croze, 
Basnage, etc."* And in another placef Voltaire 

* In his "DictioimairePhilosophique;" article, ''Hypatia." 

* "Examen Important de Milord Bolingbroke," chap. 34, 
"Des Chretiens jusqu'a Theodose." 



St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia, 49 

dares to ask: "Can anything be more horrible 
or more cowardly than the conduct of the priests 
of this Bishop Cyril, whom Christians st}de St. 
Cyril? . . . His tonsured hounds, followed by a 
mob of fanatics, attack Hypatia in the street, 
drag her by the hair, stone and burn her, and 
Cyril the Holy utters not the slightest repri- 
mand." Again:* "This Cyril was ambitious, 
factious, turbulent, knavish and cruel. . . . He 
caused his priests and diocesans to massacre the 
young Hypatia, so well known in the world of let- 
ters. . . . Cyril was jealous because of the prodi- 
gious attendance at the lectures of Hypatia, and he 
incited against her the murderers who assassinated 
her. . . . Such was Cyril of whom they have made 
a saint." And as late as 1777, when the octoge- 
narian cynic was already in the shadow of death, 
he wrote: "We know that St. Cyril caused the 
murder of Hypatia, the heroine of philosophy. "f 

Since such is the judgment expressed by Voltaire, 
at once the most shallow and most influential of 
all modern writers on historical matters, it is not 
strange that the masses have accepted the romance 
of Hypatia as recounted by most of those fosterers 
of shallowness, the encyclopaedias and dictionaries 
of the day. Even in some of the least superficial of 
these presumed authorities, such as the "NouvelleBi- 



* "Discours de Julien contre ia Secte des Galileans." 
f L'Etablissement du Christianisme," chap. 24, "Exc^s de 
Fanatisme." 



50 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 

ographie Generate" (Didot, 1858), and the "Grand 
Dictionnaire Encyclopedique du Dix-Neuvieme Si- 
ecle" (1873), the accusation against St. Cyril is 
clearly put forth. In the former work we read 
the following from the pen of a celebrated writer: * 
"It is hard to believe that the hands of St. Cyril 
were not stained in this bloody tragedy. The his- 
torian Socrates, who gives its details, adds that the 
deed covered with infamy not only Cyril but the 
whole Church of Alexandria." In the latter we are 
told: "Hypatia was massacred by the Christian pop- 
ulace, at the instigation of St. Cyril. . . . Accord- 
ing to Damascius, St. Cyril, passing one day before 
the residence of Hypatia, noted the crowd who were 
waiting to hear the daughter of Theon, and he there- 
upon conceived such jealousy of her fame that he 
resolved to procure the death of the noble and 
learned girl." f 



* M. Aube\ in vol. xxv, p. 712. 

f Yol. ix., p. 505 — Cantu does not touch the question of St. 
Cyril's responsibility for this crime. This is all that the great 
historian says concerning Hypatia: "Theon, a professor in 
Alexandria, commentated on Euclid and Ptolemy, but became 
more famous on account of his beautiful daughter Hypatia. 
Taught mathematics by him, and perfected at Athens, she was 
invited to teach philosophy in her native city. She followed 
the eclectics, but based her system on the exact sciences, and 
introduced demonstrations into the speculative, thus reducing 
them to a more rigorous method than they had hitherto known. 
Bishop Synesius was her scholar, and always venerated her. 
Orestes, Prefect of Egypt, admired and loved her, and followed 
her counsels in his contest with the fiery Archbishop, St. 
Cyril. It was said that it was owing to Hypatia's enthusiasm 
f«»r paganism that Orestes became unfavorable to the Christians. 



St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 51 

Voltaire tells us that the guilt of St. Cyril has 
been proved by the most learned men of the eight- 
eenth century, "such as Brucker, La Croze, Bas- 
nage, etc., etc." Let us pass, with a doubting 
smile, this extravagant encomium on writers of 
very ordinary calibre, and see how these Protestant 
authorities arrive at their horrible conclusion. It 
is by adducing the testimony of Socrates, Suidas, 
Damascius, and Nicephorus Callixtus. But in vain 
do they call on Socrates. This historian, although 
very hostile to St. Cyril, as he constantly shows 
himself, and although his Novatianism* would ren- 
der him very willing to incriminate an orthodox 
prelate, does not charge the holy patriarch with 
either the instigation or an approval of the murder. 
And, let it be noted, Philostorgius, also contempo- 
rary with Hypatia, and an historian of as much 
reliability as Socrates, narrates her death, but does 
not even mention the name of St. Cyril in connec- 
tion with it, although, indeed, he inculpates the 
Catholics. The same may be said of Suidas. As 



Hence certain imprudent persons so excited the people against 
her that one day, while she was going to her school, she was 
dragged from her litter, stripped and killed, and her members 
thrown into the flames." ("Storia Universale," b. vii, c. 23. 
Edit.Ital. 10; Turin, 1862.) 

* This heresy was an outgrowth of the schism of Novatian, 
who, instigated by Novatus, a Carthaginian priest, tried to 
usurp the pontifical throne of St. Cornelius in 251. Its cardi- 
nal doctrine was that there were some sins which the Church 
can not forgive. It subsisted in the East until the seventh 
century, and in the West until the eighth, 



52 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 

for Nicephorus Callixtus, this schismatic author 
should not be brought forward in the matter, as he 
lived nine centuries after the event, and could 
know nothing whatever concerning it, unless from 
Socrates and Philostorgius. Furthermore, the best 
critics of every school tax this writer with a fond- 
ness for fables. 

There remains, then, only Damascius, on whom 
Voltaire and his latest copyist, Kingsley, can rely 
for justification in their ghoulish task. But Damas- 
cius was a pagan, a declared enemy of Christianity, 
and it was the interest of his cause to besmirch the 
fair fame of Alexandria's patriarch. And of what 
value is his assertion, made a century and a half 
after the death of Hypatia, when compared with 
the silence of her contemporaries, Socrates and Phi- 
lostorgius? Again, the very passage of Damascius 
adduced by the foes of St. Cyril betrays the shal- 
lowness of this author's information. He repre- 
sents the patriarch as surprised at the numbers 
awaiting the coming forth of Hypatia, and as ask- 
ing who it was that could attract such a concourse. 
Is it possible that St. Cyril, the best informed man 
in Alexandria concerning even its most trivial 
affairs, the all-powerful patriarch whose spies were 
everywhere (according to Kingsley), did not know 
the residence of the woman who disputed with him 
the intellectual empire of the city? And Damascius 
makes still more exorbitant demands on our credu- 
lity ; for he gives us to understand that until St. Cyril 
saw that crowd of her enthusiastic disciples, he had 



St. Cyril and the Murder of Sypatia. 53 

not even heard a name which for years had been 
renowned in Egypt. 

We are not writing a life of St. Cyril, still less a 
hagiological essay; but we must remark that the 
general tenor of this prelate's career, his exhibition 
of constant zeal and virtue of a strikingly heroic 
character, "which caused his enrollment among the 
canonized saints, would prevent us from supposing 
that he could ever have been a murderer. Of 
course, absolutely speaking, no metaphysical impos- 
sibility is involved in the supposition of Voltaire, 
Kingsley, etc. ; but if it were accepted, we should 
expect to discover some trace of heroic repentance 
in the after-life of the patriarch. Now, in the 
remaining thirty years of his career, active and 
open to inspection though it was, we can find neither 
the slightest trace of such repentance nor even any 
avowal of the crime. But we need say no more. 
The charge is as gratuitous as it is malicious, and 
will thus be considered by all fair minds until at least 
one contemporary or gwa^'-contemporary author- 
ity can be adduced in its support. 



THE DIVORCE OF NAPOLEON AND 
JOSEPHINE. 

In a brochure entitled "Napoleon and His Detrac- 
tors," Prince Jerome Napoleon found fault, in 1887, 
with Prince Metternich for having contended that 
the Emperor Napoleon had never been sacramentally 
united to Josephine. The Austrian diplomat went 
so far as to declare that he had heard from the 
lips of Cardinal Consalvi that Pius VII., by con- 
ferring the imperial consecration on Josephine, an 
unmarried wife, had sanctioned, as it were, her con- 
cubinary status. It was quite natural that Metter- 
nich should wish such to have been the case ; under 
no other supposition could he uphold the honor of 
Maria Louisa and of her family. If Josephine was 
ever sacramentally united to Napoleon, the proud 
Hapsburgs had simply handed over one of them- 
selves to be the concubine of the Corsican adven- 
turer; as Catholics, the imperial family of Austria 
were compelled to acknowledge this degradation of 
their escutcheon. Now, says Prince Napoleon, the 
Emperor and Josephine, "who had been only civilly 
married in the time of the Directory, were united 
religiously by Cardinal Fesch, in order to satisfy the 
scruples of Josephine, in the evening preceding the 
consecration, and in the presence of Talleyrand and 

54 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 55 

Berthier, in the chapel of the Tuileries. I know 
this from the traditions of my family." 

Whether because they really ignored the cir- 
cumstances of Napoleon's marriage and divorce, or 
because they dared not reveal displeasing details, 
the memoirists of the First Empire — such as Bour- 
rienne, Marco Saint-Hilaire, Loriquet, Gallois, the 
Continuator of Anquetil — have given us either 
travestied information or none at all. Thiers and 
d'Haussonville afterward narrated a part of the 
story. But in 1839 M. d'Avannes, vice-president 
of the tribunal of Evreux, while preparing his 
< 'Sketches of Navarre," and wishing to give some 
place to Josephine, who had received the ancient 
kingdom as a kind of appanage, asked permission 
to consult the documents concerning our subject 
which were guarded in the archives of the Ministry 
of Justice. He was allowed to investigate, but not 
to copy them. In this emergency he had recourse 
to the friendly offices of the Abbe Eudemare, who 
had been promoter of the diocese of Paris under the 
Empire ; and who, more liberal than the state author- 
ities, was able to furnish the investigator with 
even more information than that hidden in the 
archives. Add to this source the narration of Rude- 
mare himself, as given among the "justificative 
pieces" in the "History of Cardinal Fesch," by 
the Abbe Lyonnet, and you have the means whereby 
to construct the entire history of the Napoleonic 
matrimonial complication. 



56 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 

When Napoleon married Josephine de Beauhar- 
nais, on March 9, 1796, it was a purely civil cere- 
mony which, in accordance with the spirit and law 
of the Revolution, united the pair. At that time 
the most hellish spirit of the Revolution had sub- 
sided, and it would not have been difficult to find a 
priest to bless their nuptials; indeed, during the 
worst days of the Terror few good Catholics entered 
the matrimonial life under the sole auspices of the 
State, dangerous though their fidelity generally 
proved. Josephine passed for a virtuous woman, 
and even showed a certain amount of religious devo- 
tion; on her part, therefore, this neglect may have 
been a mere worldly weakness. But there is good 
reason for supposing that Bonaparte was actuated, 
if not from the very day of his betrothal, at least 
from a period shortly posterior to it, by a design to 
provide himself with a loophole for escape from 
what might possibly become an inconvenient burden. 
In vain did Josephine beg for a religious authoriza- 
tion of their union ; this proved to be one of the 
few matters in which her influence over Napoleon 
was null. Eight years passed, and the time came 
for the coronation of Bonaparte as Emperor of the 
French. Pope Pius VII. came to Paris for the great 
ceremony, and Josephine succumbed to the influ- 
ence of that mysterious prestige which ever sur- 
rounds the Vicar of Christ. Her soul was in agony. 
Could she bear to submit her head to the blessing 
of the Supreme Pontiff of that Church whose laws 
she was defying? Could she dare to receive an 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 57 



almost sacramental consecration while living in the 
bonds of sin? And then there flashed into her mind 
the prospect of being able to finally dissipate the 
cloud which had so long hung over her otherwise 
happy life. Her purely civil marriage might be 
annulled by the powerful wish of that ambitious 
husband, whose dearest hopes her continued child- 
lessness so terribly thwarted ; but would even Bona- 
parte succeed, where Philip Augustus had failed, in 
procuring the dissolution of a Christian matrimony? 
She had already told Bourrienne that from the day 
when Napoleon commenced to plot for the imperial 
crown, she had felt herself lost; but now she could 
put an end to this anguish. She would avow her 
trouble to the Pontiff himself. 

Trembling with emotion and shame, she made 
her avowal on December 1, the day before that 
appointed for the coronation. The Pontiff was 
thunderstruck. In common with all of Josephine's 
friends — nay, with all France — he had believed her 
marriage to have been sanctioned by the Church. 
His answer, says M. d'Haussonville, was full of ten- 
derness for the weeping woman, and of consideration 
for the unscrupulous man who would have deceived 
him, while it manifested the tact of the priest and 
the Pontiff. "Canonicaliy, the situation of the 
Emperor did not concern him ; that was an affair to 
be arranged between the potentate's conscience and 
himself. But now that he, the Pontiff, knew the 
true state of affairs, he could not, much as he 
lamented the fact, admit the Empress to a share 



58 The JJivorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 

in the consecration, unless she were first united to 
Napoleon before a priest." When Napoleon was 
informed of Josephine's action and of the Pontifical 
decision, his rage was terrific; but what could he 
do ? Proceed with his own consecration, and ignore 
the rights of Josephine? The scandal was not to 
be thought of ; and the displeasure of the Pontiff, 
whose friendship he sadly needed, was not to be un- 
necessarily incurred. But one course was open to 
the schemer: to consent to the proposed nuptial 
benediction, and to devise some means for its nulli- 
fication. According to the Canon Law, no Christian 
matrimony was valid unless performed in the pres- 
ence of the pastor of one of the contracting parties ; 
clandestine matrimony, such as, although illicit, is 
valid in most of the States of the American Union, 
and in those lands where the Tridentine decree on 
matrimony was never promulgated, was not recog- 
nized by the Church in France. Here, then, the 
astute Bonaparte imagined that his security was 
found. His union with Josephine should be con- 
tracted without the presence of the parish-priest 
or of witnesses; there was no time for the one, 
and necessary secrecjr precluded the attendance of 
the others, as he told his uncle, Cardinal Pesch, 
on whose assistance and devotion he relied in his 
dilemma. At first Fesch refused to countenance 
what he rightly asserted would be a mere mockery 
of a religious solemnization, and of no validity; 
but he yielded sufficiently to propose recurring to 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 59 

the Pope for the powers necessary for his own as- 
sumption of the office of the cure of the Tuileries, 
and for the dispensation with witnesses. Can it be 
possible that Napoleon did not perceive that this 
action of his uncle promised to destroy his own 
hopes ? Did he not realize that by recurring to the 
Pontiff, the source of Canon Law, for a dispensa- 
tion from the provisions of that Law, he was cut- 
ting from under his feet the only ground on which 
he could securely stand, and on occupying which 
he had just resolved? The comedy which he had 
been enacting from the day of his marriage, which 
he was now developing for the illusion of Jose- 
phine, of the Church of France, of his future Em- 
press, of the august house of Hapsburg, was 
certainly threatened with collapse. At any rate, 
the Cardinal proceeded to the apartments of Pius 
VII., and at once broached the subject of his 
quandary. "Most Holy Father, it may be that in 
the exercise of my duties in this matter, I shall 
need all the powers of your Holiness." "Very 
well," replied the Pontiff; "I accord them all." 

Here, then, is the solution of the entire question 
as to the religious marriage of Napoleon and Jose- 
phine, and consequently of the question of the 
validity of the pretended divorce by an incompe- 
tent ecclesiastical tribunal. With the action of the 
civil tribunals we, of course, have nothing to do. 
The sole ground for the acquiescence of the di- 
ocesan tribunal of Paris in the imperial demands 



60 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 

was the non-fulfillment, at the religious marriage, 
of the conditions prescribed as essential by the 
Canon Law. But the Koman Pontiff had dispensed 
with these conditions in this particular case; he 
had derogated, in favor of Napoleon and Josephine, 
from the obligatory force of those conditions, just 
as he does in every case of clandestine matrimo- 
ny, not otherwise illegitimate, celebrated in these 
United States and in other countries where the 
Tridentine decree was not promulgated. 

As soon as he had received full power to act in 
the premises, Cardinal Fesch betook himself to the 
apartments of the Empress, and there married the 
imperial couple. Whether there were any witnes- 
ses or not to the ceremony appears to be doubtful. 
Capefigue, following Portalis, names that person- 
age and Duroc. Thiers at first mentioned Talley- 
rand and Berthier; and then, on the testimony of 
certain original documents, denied their presence. 
The depositions of Talleyrand and Berthier before 
the "officiality" say nothing of their presence; 
but of course it was to the interest of their master 
that they should hide whatever would strengthen 
the validity of the religious ceremony. Just before 
the coronation Pope Pius asked Cardinal Fesch 
whether he had conferred the nuptial benediction. 
"Yes," was the laconic reply. Two days after- 
ward Josephine asked the Cardinal to give her a 
certificate of the marriage ; and although he at first 
demurred, for fear of offending the Emperor, he 
yielded to her entreaties so far as to hand her a 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 61 

paper, the exact contents of which have never been 
made known. 

It was in 1809, after the treaty of Vienna, that 
Napoleon first opened his mind clearly to Camba- 
ceres, archchancellor of the Empire, on the matter 
of the divorce. A senatus-consultus was immedi- 
ately promulgated (December 16) proclaiming the 
dissolution of the Emperor's civil marriage. Napo- 
leon had flattered himself that the religious mar- 
riage would give him no trouble whatever; it was a 
secret among the Cardinal his uncle, Josephine, and 
himself. But when he learned that Fesch had in- 
discreetly mentioned the ceremony to Cambaceres, 
and that he had even given a certificate to Jose- 
phine, he found himself compelled to seek from the 
ecclesiastical authorities a declaration of the nullity 
of his union. Ignoring the existence of the Pope, 
the proper judge in the matrimonial causes of 
sovereigns, recourse was had to the diocesan 
tribunal of Paris (not to a reunion of bishops, as 
Thiers says), — a body established to judge of 
similar causes between private individuals, and one 
composed of the appellant's subjects. On Decem- 
ber 22, 1809, the Abbe Rudemare, diocesan promoter 
of Paris; his colleague, M. Corpet; and the two 
officials, MM. Lejeas and Boisleve, were summoned 
to a conference with Cambaceres, in the presence 
of the Minister of Worship. 

"The Emperor," said Cambaceres, "can not 
abandon the hope of leaving behind him an heir 
who will assure the tranquility, glory, and integrity 



62 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 

of the Empire which he has founded. He intends 
to marry again, and he desires to espouse a Cath- 
olic. Hence his union with the Empress Jose- 
phine must be annulled, and he wishes to submit 
the case to the diocesan tribunal." 

"But, my lord," returned the Abbe Eudemare, 
"such a cause as this is reserved, if not by law, at 
least by custom, to the Sovereign Pontiff." 

"I am not authorized to recur to Rome," replied 
the archchancellor. 

"You need not go to Eome; the Pope is at 
Savona," said the promoter. 

"I am not told to treat with him," answered 
Cambaceres; "and it is impossible to do so under 
present circumstances." 

"There are several cardinals, my lord, in Paris; 
why not submit this affair to them?" 

"They have no jurisdiction, M. TAbbe," re- 
turned the imperial confidant. 

"But at least," insisted the promoter, "we have 
here a commisson of cardinals, archbishops, and 
bishops, assembled for affairs of the Church." 

"They do not constitute a tribunal," said Camba- 
ceres; "whereas the 'officiality' is one formed for 
the cognizance of these very causes." 

"Yes, prince," returned the Abbe; "but only 
for those of private individuals. The dignity of 
the parties here concerned prevents our tribunal 
from regarding itself as competent in the premises." 

"What ! ' ' exclaimed the archchancellor. ' 'Do you 
means to say that his Majesty has no right to pre- 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 63 

sent himself before a tribunal established for his 
subjects, and composed of his subjects? Who con- 
tests his right?" 

" He may present himself," acknowledged the 
promoter; "but such a course would be so con- 
trary to custom that we could not assume the re- 
sponsibility of acting as his judges unless the epis- 
copal commission decided in favor of our compe- 
tency. Although disposed to prove our devotion 
to his Majesty in every possible way, we must take 
every means to shield our own responsibility, and 
to insure the repose of our consciences. In under- 
taking this case we become a spectacle for angels 
and men." 

"But this affair must remain secret," said Cam- 
baceres; "all the documents shall be deposited in 
the cabinet of the Emperor. At any rate, the 
Minister of Worship will see that you receive the 
approbation that you desire." 

The motives for the nullification of the religious 
marriage having been submitted to the diocesan 
tribunal, the promoter exclaimed: "But we all 
thought, as did indeed the whole Empire, that the 
marriage of their Majesties had been celebrated in 
1796 with all the canonical forms." 

"That is a mistake," observed Cambaceres. 
"Foreseeing what has now happened, his Majesty 
would never receive the nuptial benediction. But 
on Saturday, December 1, 1804, tired of the entrea- 
ties of the Empress, he told Cardinal Fesch to give 
the nuptial blessing; and he did so in the apart- 



64 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 

ments of the Empress, without any witnesses, and 
without the presence of the cure." 

"Prince," asked the Abbe, "where is the record 
of this marriage?" 

"There is none," replied the archchancellor, who 
knew that Josephine had a certificate of the mar- 
riage, if indeed the imperial familiars had not found 
means to destroy it. 

"This affair," remarked the promoter, "provid- 
ing, of course, that our competence is assured, 
must be conducted precisely as though it were the 
case of one of his Majesty's subjects." 

"What ! Follow mere forms ? They take too much 
time. I have been a lawyer, and I know." 

"That may be," returned Rudemare; "but forms 
often lead us to a knowledge of the truth; and, 
besides, we can not ignore them without risk of 
nullifying our proceedings. However, there is no 
reason why this second question should not also be 
submitted to the episcopal commission." 

On January 1, Napoleon obtained from seven 
prelates, who had no authority whatever in the 
premises, a declaration that the diocesan tribunal 
was competent to decide his matrimonial cause. 
These prelates were the very same who afterward 
pronounced the excommunication of Bonaparte 
null, "because it had been launched in defence of 
temporal interests;" and who added to the suffer- 
ings of the august prisoner of Savona by threat- 
ening, in the name of the church of France, to 
provide for its necessities if he did not yield to 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 65 

the schismatic demands of Bonaparte. They were 
the Cardinal Maury; the Cardinal Caselli, bishop 
of Parma; de Barral, archbishop of Tours; Cana- 
veri, bishop of Vercelli ; Bourlier of Evreux, Manet 
of Treves, and Duvoisin of Nantes. In accordance 
with the views of this declaration, the tribunal of 
Paris listened, on January 6, to the attestations, 
signed and sealed, of Cardinal Fesch, Talleyrand, 
Berthier, and Duroc, to the effect that the canoni- 
cal conditions had not been observed in the religious 
marriage of the Emperor, and that his Majesty 
had intentionally arranged this neglect; for he 
could not dream, they said, of binding himself 
irrevocably in this matter at the moment when he 
was founding a new empire. On January 9, the 
tribunal heard a development of the further motive 
for dissolution which had been hinted in this last 
clause. Napoleon, the master of Europe, had 
been constrained in the exercise of his free will. 
He had not consented to the marriage. The of- 
ficial Peter Boisleve then delivered judgment in 
favor of the imperial postulant, but with the 
important reservation that the decision was pro- 
nounced by him because of the difficulty of recur- 
ring to the Supreme Pontiff, to whom such a case 
should by right have been referred. The promoter 
having appealed to the metropolitan "officiality," 
its members confirmed the decision already given, 
but referred the affair for final adjudication to the 
primatial tribunal of Lyons. However, it was an 
easy matter to ignore the responsibility thus thrust 



66 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine, 

upon this higher court. The Archbishop of Lyons 
was Cardinal Fesch. 

Such is the history of one of the most solemn 
burlesques of justice ever perpetrated by a human 
tribunal. An incompetent court, listening to tes- 
timony evidently false as well as interested, and 
ignoring the manifest suppression of what would 
have given another aspect to the cause, slavishly 
bent to the will of an autocrat, and passed over as 
never having occurred a marriage sanctioned by the 
Vicar of Christ; and, turning to the civil union 
which the church had never recognized, pronounced 
the contracting parties free to enter upon new nup- 
tials. Had Josephine resisted the imperial will — 
had she performed her duty as wife and woman, 
and carried her case before its proper judge, — her 
rights would have been proclaimed, even though 
the brute force of her husband might have forced 
her to yield her place to another. But she never 
appealed; sure of her husband's invincible determi- 
nation to repudiate her, she perforce found conso- 
lation in an empty title and in a magnificent estab- 
lishment. It has been asserted that Josephine was 
cognizant of reasons for preservation of silence; 
it has been declared that there was a real, though 
secret, impediment, which invalidated her union 
with Napoleon, and of which the Viennese court 
was informed during the negotiations for the hand 
of Maria Louisa. So say Thiers and Rohrbacher. 
But this impediment could not have subsisted. The 
existence of Eugene and Hortense, taken in con- 



The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 67 

junction with Josephine's own frequent anticipa- 
tions, as evidenced by her letters to her husband 
and her friends, forbid such a supposition. 

We would remark in conclusion that the term 
6 'divorce" should not be used in treating of this 
case. When concubinaries are separated, they are 
not divorced; they are simply declared not bound 
to each other. Here a sycophant tribunal denied 
the existence of the religious marriage, and of 
course it could not recognize the civil union. In 
this state of affairs it pronounced the parties free 
from matrimonial obligations. A divorce properly 
so called — that is, the dissolution of an existing tie 
(quoad vinculum} — can not and never has been 
granted by the Catholic Church in the case of con- 
summated Christian matrimony ; and we know of 
no tribunal calling itself Catholic, in the Western 
Patriarchate, whether competent or incompetent, 
legitimate or illegitimate, ever having pretended to 
accord such a separation. As to the contrary 
course of the Oriental Uniates, even the judicious 
Perrone can only remark, 6i ipsi viderint." For an 
instance of the inflexibility of the Holy See in this 
regard, even in the case of the mighty ones of the 
earth, the mind of Josephine had not to travel back 
many centuries, or to search outside the annals of 
her husband's family. The case of Jerome Bona- 
parte and his Baltimorean Protestant spouse was of 
a recent date. 



FENELON AND VOLTAIRE. 

Few modern critics will refuse to Voltaire the 
title of champion historical liar of the world. He 
has had hundreds of competitors, and perhaps scores 
of them have surpassed him in barefacedly gratu- 
itous assertion; but for a ' 'thumping" lie, so well 
concocted, so attractively dressed, as to be greedily 
swallowed and easily digested by even the few 
fastidious among the mob who yearn for pungent 
historical titbits, the "Sage of Ferney" need fear no 
rival. Nearly all of his lies were exposed during 
his life-time or soon after ; * but so true is his own 
cynical remark as to the sticking qualities of plenti- 
fully-thrown mud, that even in our day many of his 
inventions are unwittingly credited by thousands 
who know little or nothing about Voltaire himself; 
for, almost without exception, writers of the heter- 
odox and freethinking schools have transmitted his 
fictions from generation to generation as universally 
admitted — nay, indisputable — facts . 



* Prominent among the vindicators of truth were Nonotte, 
in "Les Erreurs de Voltaire," 1762; Foncemagne, in his 
"■Lettre sur le Testament Politique du Card, de Richelieu," 
1750; the Dictionnaire Historique, Litteraire, et Critique," 
by the Abbe Barral and the Oratorians Guibaud and Valla, 
1758; and Chaudon, in his "Les Grands Hommes Venges," 1769. 



Fenelon and Voltaire. 69 

"The Age of Louis XIV." is, among all the works 
of Voltaire, probably the most prolific of falsehood; 
scarcely one of the truly great personages of that 
period is not covered with the cynic's venomous 
slime. One is not thunderstruck when he reads 
the worse than insinuations as to the sincerity of 
Turenne's conversion to Catholicism; but one is 
dazed when he beholds Fenelon, the dove of sim- 
plicity, presented to a hitherto venerating world as 
a probable hypocrite, a freethinker, and a philoso- 
phist. Such is the guise in which we are invited to 
regard the angelic Archbishop of Cambria, when 
his defamer tells us that Ramsay, a pupil of our 
prelate, wrote to him (Voltaire) that "if Fenelon 
had been born in a free country, he would have dis- 
played his whole genius, and given a full career to 
his own principles, never known" (sic.)* 

Ramsay had been intimate with Fenelon, and 
when, despite the efforts of the best theologians of 
that communion, he had become convinced of the 
baselessness of Anglicanism, in which system he 
had been bred, he was saved by his friend from the 
shoals of incredulity, and drawn into the haven of 
Catholicity (1709). Such being the case, is it likely 
that Ramsay would have proclaimed his religious 
mentor as a mere time-server, a devotee of policy, a 
man ready to abandon his convictions for petty 
interest? Ramsay could not refute Voltaire's asser- 



* In Preface, Voltaire himself quotes Ramsay's alleged 
original English. 



70 Fenelon and Voltaire. 

tion ; for he had died in 1743, and the allegation was 
not made until 1752. It is the opinion of Chaudon 
that if Ramsay ever wrote the adduced letter, the 
quoted passage alluded, not to Fenelon's religious 
principles, but to those "of the author of 'Telema- 
chus' on the authority of kings. " At any rate, 
Ramsay's Life of Fenelon* shows that, to use the 
words of Sainte-Beuve, Mgr. de Cambray "was not 
of the ordination of d'Alembert and Voltaire, "f 
Barthelemy, the latest author, we believe, to touch 
on this particular audacity of Voltaire, draws exten- 
sively on the work of Chaudon, who himself appeals 
to Ramsay's acknowledged judgment on Fenelon, as 
portrayed in his detailed account of his own argu- 
mentation with that prelate. We submit to the 
reader's attention a few passages of this interesting 
conversation, which certainly indicates none of those 
principles which Voltaire would attribute to Fenelon. 
Having detailed certain objections concerning the 
Natural Law and toleration which he had adduced to 
the Archbishop, Ramsay gives the prelate's reply: 
"If you would persist in your philosophical inde- 
pendence, and if you would tolerate in some sort all 
kinds of sects, you must necessarily regard Chris- 
tianity as an imposture; for there is no medium 
between Deism and Catholicism." As this seemed a 
paradox to Ramsay, the Archbishop explained : "In 



* "Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de Messire F. de S. 
Fenelon." La Haye, 1723. 

f "Causeries du Lundi" (1 Avril, 1850). 



Fenelon and Voltaire. 71 

renouncing all supernatural and revealed law, you 
must limit yourself to Natural Religion, founded on 
the idea of God; but if you admit a revelation, you 
must recognize some supreme authority ever prompt 
and able to interpret it. Without such established 
visible authority, the Christian Church would be like 
a republic having wise laws, but no magistrates to 
enforce them. What a source of confusion ! Each 
citizen, a copy of the law in hand, disputing its 
meaning ! . . . Has not our Sovereign Legislator 
provided better than this for the peace of His 
republic and the preservation of His law? Again, 
if there is no infallible authority to say to all, 
'Behold the real meaning of Holy Writ,' how are 
the ignorant peasant and the untutored artisan to 
decide where even the most learned can not agree ? 
In giving a written law, God would have ignored 
the needs of the immense majority of mankind, had 
He not also furnished an interpreter to spare them a 
task the peformance of which would be impossible. 
You must reject the Bible as a fiction, or submit to 
the Church." 

Ramsay impetuously rejoined : ' 'Monseigneur, you 
want me to recognize an earthly tribunal as infal- 
lible? I have gone through most of the sects, and 
permit me to say, with all due respect, that the 
priests of all religions are frequently more corrupt 
and more ignorant than other men." Fenelon 
sweetly replied: "If we do not rise above what is 
human in the most numerous assemblies of the 



72 Fenelon and Voltaire. 

Church, we shall find there only what will revolt us 
and nourish our incredulity ; we shall see only pas- 
sions, prejudices, human imbecility, political schem- 
ing, cabals. But we must the more admire the 
divine omnipotence and wisdom, since they accom- 
plish their designs by means which appear apt only 
to frustrate those designs." Ramsay yielded to the 
necessity of a living interpreter for a revealed law, 
but still clung to his idea of Natural Religion, and 
asserted that one need only to enter into one's self 
to feel the truth of that religion. Fenelon inquired : 
"And how many men are capable of so entering 
into themselves as to consult pure reason ? Granted 
that some, here and there, may enter on this purely 
intellectual road, the rank and file can not, and they 
need external aid." But hearken to the prelate's 
resume of the fall of man and the economy of the 
Redemption : 

"Our first parents having abused their liberty in 
a paradise of immortality and pleasure, God changed 
their probationary state for a mortal one — one of 
mixed good and evil, — in order that an experience 
of the nothingness of creatures might prompt us to 
constantly yearn for a better life. From that time 
all men were born with an inclination to evil. . . . 
We are born sick, but a cure is ever ready at hand. 
The light which enlightens every one who comes 
into the world is never wanting to any individual. 
Sovereign Wisdom has spoken differently, accord- 
ing to time and place ; to some by the supernatural 



Fenelon and Voltaire. 73 

law and by the miracles of the Prophets, and to 
others by the natural law and the wonders of 
creation. Every person is judged by the law he 
knows, and not by that he ignores. At length 
God himself assumed flesh like our own, that He 
might satisfy for sin, and to furnish us an example 
of the worship due Him. God can not pardon a 
criminal without also manifesting His horror for 
crime; that manifestation He owes to justice, and 
it can be given only by Jesus Christ. . . . The 
religion of this Eternal Pontiff consists of charity 
alone; the Sacraments, the priesthood, and cere- 
monies, are only aids to our weakness, — only sen- 
sible signs to nourish in ourselves and others the 
knowledge and love of our common Father; in fine, 
they are means necessary to keep us in order, in 
unity, and in obedience. One day these means will 
cease, the figures will vanish, the true temple will 
be opened; our bodies will arise glorious, and God 
will communicate eternally with His creatures. Be- 
hold the general plan of Providence ; behold, so 
to say, the philosophy of the Bible. Suppose that 
its truth could not be demonstrated. Would you 
not wish it to be true?" 

In three different places* Yoltaire descants upon 
the scepticism of Fenelon, as manifested by certain 



* In the "Siecle de Louis XIV.," in 1752; in the "Examen 
du Tableau Historique," in 1763; and in a letter to Formey, 
perpetual secretary of the Academy of Berlin, in 1752. 



?4 Fenelon and Voltaire. 

lines* written by him, says the "Sage," toward the 
end of his life. Here the prelate declares that he 
has "arrived at old age, and foresees nothing;" 
therefore, concludes Voltaire, he was a sceptic. 
Now, it is by no means certain that these verses 
were composed by the Archbishop of Cambrai, 
although Voltaire "swears before God," in letters 
to Formey and to Courtivron, that the prelate's 
nephew, the Marquis de Fenelon, sang them as 
his uncle's production. The Marquis could not 
deny this ; for he had been killed at the battle of 
Rocoux in 1746, and the assertion was made in 
1752 and 1755. Voltaire himself admits that the 
verses are not to be found in the published editions 
of Fenelon's works, because, he says, it was not 
deemed desirable that the Jansenists should have an 
opportunity to accuse their great adversary of scep- 
ticism ; but he does not indicate the libraries where 
may be found any of the suppressed fifty copies of 
"Telemaque" which, as he insists, do contain them. 
But since Voltaire adduces the authority of the 
Marquis de Fenelon, let us, with Barthelemy, quote 
another nephew of the Archbishop, the pious Abbe 
de Fenelon, the intimate companion of a great part 
of his life. 

The Abbe seems to admit his uncle's composition 
of the verses, but interprets them in a way that would 



* Jeune, j'elais trop sage 
Et voulais trop savoir; 
Je ne veux en partage 

Que badinage 
Et touche au dernier age 
Sans rien pre voir. 



Fenelon and Voltaire. 75 

not please Yoltaire. "An historian, a bel esprit, but 
not very accurate, has made it to appear that Fenelon 
died like a 'philosopher,' yielding blindly to destiny, 
with neither fear nor hope. He quotes in proof 
certain verses which he presents Monseigneur de 
Cambrai as repeating during his last illness ; but he 
takes good care not to observe that these verses are 
part of a canticle by M. de Fenelon, treating of the 
simplicity of a holy and divine childlikeness, which 
ignores human prudence and all inquietude for the 
future, in order to abandon itself, without any useless 
and often harmless surmises, to a trust in the mercy 
of God and in the merits of Jesus Christ."* And 
Lepan.f finding fault with Yoltaire as a falsifier of 
other men's literary productions, adduces these 
verses as an instance; showing that in this very po- 
em, Fenelon, if its author, gave good proof of being 
actuated by most Christian sentiments. Yoltaire 
shamelessly omitted to notice the stanza preceding 
the proffered lines, and there it is proclaimed that 
"human prudence is vain, that ignorance is the 
writer's science, that Jesus and His simplicity are 
his all. "J In fact, the very title of this poem is 



* ' w La Vie de Fenelon, ecrite par l'Abbe, son neveu," pre- 
fixed to the works, edit. 1787, vol. i, p. 749. 

t See Lepan's- "Vie Politique, Litteraire, et Morale, de 
Voltaire," 1817. 

% Adieu, vaine prudence, 
Je ne te dois plus rien ; 
Une heureuse ignorance 

Est ma science: 
J^sus et son enfance 
Est tout mon bien. 



76 Fenelon and Voltaire. 

opposed to the "philosophy" of Voltaire: "A fare- 
well to human wisdom in order to live like a child." 

The reader is probably familiar with Fenelon's 
history, and therefore we shall spare him the par- 
ticulars of the saintly prelate's quasi-ex\\e from 
the court of the great monarch. That he expe- 
rienced grief because of his separation from the 
Duke of Burgundy — whom he had so carefully 
formed for the throne, and who, had death not 
intervened, would have proved a more than ordi- 
narily worthy successor of St. Louis, — no one can 
doubt; but his regrets were not, as Voltaire would 
regard them, founded on a chagrin at being de- 
barred from domination over his quondam pupil, 
or on a hankering after the allurements of a court; 
but rather on pure affection, which naturally yearns 
for the society of the beloved objects, and for 
opportunity to benefit it. Yet, our cynic says: 
"In his philosophical and honorable retreat, Fene- 
lon learned how difficult it is to detach one's self 
from a court. He always manifested an interest 
in the court, and a taste for it which betrays itself 
amid all his resignation." 

This charge is baseless ; in not a line of the 
prelate's correspondence can be found a single 
expression which would give even coloring to it. 
Eamsay says that Louis XIV., having overcome 
the prejudice against Fenelon with which he had 
been inspired, "thought seriously of recalling the 
Archbishop; he wished his aid in terminating an 
affair (Jansenism) which agitated the church of 






Fenelon and Voltaire. 77 

his kingdom. The Archbishop of Cambrai saw 
matters shaping themselves for his return, but 
with sentiments very different from those an ordi- 
nary man would have felt, He cherished only a 
desire for retirement. Had he been compelled to 
return to the court, he would have appeared there 
only to manifest his views concerning the best way 
to give peace to the Church, and would have retired 
immediately on perceiving that union had been ef- 
fected." 

But listen to Fenelon in reply to those who, 
afflicted by the prospect of schism in France, would 
have called on his virtue, his sweetness, and his 
genius, to banish the spectre. Had he been ani- 
mated by a desire to play a prominent part on the 
stage of affairs, he would scarcely have answered: 
"I admit that your propositions would be more 
readily entertained by one possessing a taste for 
affairs. But my opinion of myself is not suffi- 
ciently exalted to warrant me in supposing that 
I can restore peace to the Church. I wish not to 
assume the grand rdle which you design for me; 
it is the Cardinal de Noailles who can give peace 
to the Church. I know no secrets, but I dare to 
assert that he can effect union when he wishes to 
do so; the matter is entirely in his hands. I wish 
for him all the glory, all the merit before God 
and men ; and I would die content if, from a dis- 
tance, I could hear of his having perfected the 
great work."* 

* When the dying Fenelon had received Extreme Unction, he 
wrote to the royal confessor, saying : "I beg of his Majesty two 



78 Fenelon and Voltaire. 

But there is one fact that eloquently shows how 
little rancor Fenelon 's dismissal must have caused 
in his gentle breast. When named for the archi- 
episcopal see of Cambrai, he could have enjoyed, 
in accordance with a detestable and too prevalent 
custom of the time, the emoluments of his see, 
and could have performed his duties by substitute, 
continuing to reside nearly always at court. He 
accepted his promotion, much as he loved his royal 
pupils, only on condition that he might reside in 
his diocese at least nine months of the year.* 

Nor does the life led by Fenelon at Cambrai, 
as depicted by himself in a letter to one of his 
nephews — the Abbe de Beaumont, — indicate any 
discontent with his lot. His gentleness as a man, 
his watchfulness as a bishop, had plentiful scope 
in a district constantly harassed by contending 
armies, and all, — English, Germans, Hollanders, — 
rivalled his own diocesans in veneration for the 
saintly shepherd. His recreation, whenever duty 
allowed any, was a visit to the cabin of some peas- 
ant, where he would console and instruct, and 
often join in the simple feasts and meals of the 
poor. Well could he write in 1710: "I have no 
desire to change my situation. I never sought the 
court; I was forced to it. I resided there for ten 
years without concerning myself about it — -not 
taking one step for my own interest, not ask- 

favors, which regard neither myself nor mine. The first is 
that the King will give me a successor who is pious, and firm 
against Jansenism, now so prevalent in these parts." (See 
Bausset, "Histoire de Fenelon." 1817). 
* Bausset, loc. cit., vol. i, p. 318. 



Fenelon and Voltaire. 79 

ing one favor, intervening in no schemes, and 
restricting myself to conscientious replies when 
my opinion was asked. I have been dismissed, 
and it is my duty to fill my present position 
in peace. The best of the King's servants who 
know me are well acquainted with my principles as 
to honor, religion, the King, and my country; they 
know my profound gratitude for all the King's 
favors. Other persons may easily be more capable 
than I am, none can be more truly zealous." * 

* /&., vol. iii, p. 40. — According to Voltaire, the object of 
Fenelon in writing his charming classic, "Telemachus," was to 
satirize his sovereign, benefactor, and then friend, Louis XIV. 
But when was "Telemachus," composed? If Fenelon's inten- 
tion was to satirize his king, the work must have been pro- 
duced when he was suffering from some real or fancied injury 
at the hands of Louis. Certainly he would not have risked the 
royal resentment when he was in full favor, and had every- 
thing to lose by such action. But Fenelon himself tells us that 
this work was written while he was in charge of the education 
of the king's grandson, the Ducde Bourgogne; and during the 
entire period of his tutorship the prelate was in the highest fa- 
vor of his Majesty, as indeed the very nature of his office would 
indicate. Again, the testimony of Bossuet shows that Fenelon 
composed "Telemachus" in 1693 or '94, that is, when the two 
bishops were on terms of the most intimate confidence. Bossuet 
says that FCnelon communicated to him the first part of his MS., 
and it is scarcely to be supposed that he would have done so, 
had he wished to attack the king in any manner. At least this 
participation indicates that "Telemachus" was written before 
any coolness had arisen between the two prelates; that is, be- 
fore the period (1699) when, and after which only, Fenelon 
could have felt any chagrin toward Louis XIV., and when he 
might have acted as a man of less noble spirit than his own 
would have naturally done, if opportunity permitted. There- 
fore Fenelon shall still remain for us the "dove of Cambray;" 
and the school of Voltaire shall not be gratified by seeing the 
hawk assigned as his emblem. 



GALILEO. 



School-childken are frequently told that in a 
time of most dense ignorance, Galileo, an Italian 
astronomer, discovered that the earth moves around 
the sun; that this doctrine was contrary to that 
of the Catholic Church, and that therefore the un- 
fortunate scientist was seized by the Inquisition, 
thrown into a dungeon, and tortured; that finally 
he retracted his teaching, but that, nevertheless, 
even while ostensibly yielding, he muttered: "And 
yet the earth does move." Very few Protestants 
even suspect any exaggeration in these assertions ; 
still fewer appear to know that Galileo did not 
discover that the earth moves around the sun; 
that this doctrine was not contrary to that of 
the Catholic Church; that the imprisonment of 
Galileo was merely nominal, and that he was sub- 
jected to no torture whatever; that the famous re- 
mark "HI pur si muove" is a work of imagination. 

Galileo did not discover that the earth moves 
around the sun. The ancient Greeks certainly knew 
that the earth is round, that it is isolated in space, 
and that it moves. Aristotle and Ptolemy under- 
took to refute the last theory. According to Cicero, 
Nicetas asserted the motion of the earth. Philolaus, 

80 



Galileo 81 

says Eusebius, thought that the earth moved around 
the region of fire, in an oblique circle. Aristarchus 
of Samos, says Archimedes, sustained the immo- 
bility of the sun, and that the earth turned around 
it as around a centre. Seneca thinks it "well to 
inquire whether the rest of the universe moves 
around a stationary earth, or whether the earth 
moves in a stationary universe."* The Irish 
Ferghil (Virgilius), Bishop of Salzburg in the 
eighth century, taught the existence of the anti- 
podes. Dante certainly believed in the antipodes 
and in central attraction, f Copernicus himself 
never pretended to be the author of the system 
which bears his name, although to this humble 
Polish priest belongs the glory of having precisely 
formulated that system, and at a time when a 
knowledge of it had almost vanished from among 
men. Galileo needs not to be regarded as a prince 
among astronomers in order to merit the homage 
of the scientific; his greatest glory is that of a 
mechanician. 

The heliocentric system was not contrary to the 
doctrine of the Catholic Church. She never has 
proposed and she can not propose to her children 
any system of merely physical science as a matter 
of faith. Certainly, if any system contradicts her 
teachings she exercises her right to condemn it. 
Most churchmen of the early seventeenth century, 



* "Nat. Questions," vii, 2. 
t "Hell," canto 34. 



82 Galileo. 

quite naturally followers of the generally received 
scientific theories of their day, rejected the idea of 
a motion of the earth around the sun; but the 
Church did not force them to such rejection. Had 
such been the mind of the Church, Copernicus and 
his many forerunners would not have been regarded 
as good Catholics; and Copernicus himself would 
not have dedicated his "Revolutions of the Heavenly 
Orbs" to Pope Paul III., saying: "If men who are 
ignorant in mathematics pretend to condemn my 
book, because of certain passages of Scripture which 
they distort to suit themselves, I despise their vain 
attacks." Calcagnini, who died in 1540, would not 
have pubicly taught at Ferrara that "the heavens 
stand, but the earth moves." 

But if the Church was not hostile to purely 
scientific innovations, Luther and Melancthon were 
not so liberal. In his "Table Talk" Luther says: 
"Men pay heed to an astrologer who contends that 
it is the earth that moves, and not the heavens or 
the firmament, the sun and the moon. If a man 
yearns for a reputation as a profound scientist, he 
should invent some new system. This madman 
would subvert the whole science of astronomy ; but 
Scripture tells us that Joshua bade the sun, and not 
the earth, to stand still." In his "Principles of the 
Science of Physics," Melancthon says: "The eyes 
testify that the heavens revolve every twenty-four 
hours ; and nevertheless some men, either from love 
of novelty or to parade their genius, insist that the 



Galileo. 83 

earth moves, and that the eighth sphere and the sun 
do not revolve. Every true believer is obliged to 
accept the truth as revealed by God, and to be con- 
tented with it." 

It is certain that for many years Galileo was ad- 
mired and cherished by the most learned ecclesiastics 
of Borne ; that three successive Pontiffs gave him 
many tokens of esteem ; that he was one of the 
most honored members of the celebrated Academy 
of the Lincei. The Cardinal del Monte, writing to 
the Grand Duke of Tuscany, says: "During his 
sojourn at Rome Galileo has given much satisfac- 
tion, and I believe that he has received the same; 
for he has enjoyed good opportunities to exhibit 
his inventions, and the best-informed men of the 
Eternal City regard them as most wonderful and 
accurate. If we were living in the olden days 
of Rome, the worth of Galileo, I think, would be 
recognized by a statue on the Capitoline." 

A famous scientist, the Carmelite Foscarini, pub- 
lished in 1615 — only a year before Galileo's first 
trouble with the Inquisition — a theological apology 
for the philosopher and the Copernican system, 
which was dedicated to Fantoni, General of the 
Carmelites, and approved by the ecclesiastical 
authorities of Naples. On May 15 of the same year 
Mgr. Dini, a Roman prelate and an old pupil of 
Galileo, writes that there is no fear that the Coper- 
nican system will be condemned; and that as to 
Galileo himself, "he should fortify his position 
with arguments well-founded both in Scripture and 



84 Galileo, 

mathematics;" and that in the meantime he may 

be assured of the writer's own influence with the 

Sacred College in his favor, and of the protection 

of Prince Cesi, the founder and president of the 

Lincei. Indeed, as late as February 16, 1616, 

Galileo wrote to Picchena that he found among 

the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries much dis- 
cs o 

pleasure because of "the diabolic opposition of his 
persecutors." 

Before approaching the main object of our article 
we must reply to a question which naturally occurs 
to one who observes that the Church of the seven- 
teenth century was not hostile to the Copernican 
system, and that so many churchmen were favorable 
to Galileo. How happened it that Galileo found 
himself cited before an ecclesiastical tribunal? In 
accounting for this fact little weight need be at- 
tached to the sentiments and conduct of those who, 
in his day as at all times, appear to be tolerated 
by God for the trial of genius. Men who argued 
against the movement of the earth because the earth 
has no limbs, muscles, and sinews;* men who 
would decry the heliocentric system with the words, 
"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking up to 
heaven ?" f — such persons could have had no influ- 



* Thus Chiaramonti of Cesena. 

f Thus the Dominican Caccini, preaching the Advent 
course in S. Maria Novella in Florence. But Maraffi, General 
of the Dominicans, writing to Galileo on January 10, 1615, 
deplored the extravagance of Caccini, who, he said, had 
previously hren forced to apologize in Bologna for other 
absurdities in the pulpit. 



Galileo. 85 

ence upon the Eoman Congregations. Nor would 
these tribunals have exercised their power merely 
because Galileo was contradicted by Tassoni, Vieta, 
Montaigne, Bacon, Pascal, and other great thinkers 
of the time.* The fault of Galileo consisted in 
his confusing revealed truths with physical discov- 
eries, and in teaching in what sense Scripture 
passages were to be taken, explaining them by 
demonstrations of calculation and experience. 
Every one admits with Dante f that the Scriptures 
adopt popular ideas for the sake of perspicuity. 
But Galileo said that in the Scriptures "are found 
propositions which, taken literally, are false; that 
Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the 
people, expresses itself inexactly, even when treat- 
ing of solemn dogmas ; that in questions concerning 
natural things, philosophical argument should avail 
more than sacred." 

These assertions unsettled all science, founded as 
it then was on revelation; "the earth," says Cantu, 



* Tassoni, a very independent thinker, thus reasoned: 
"Stand still in the middle of a room, and look at the sun 
through a window opening toward the south. Now, if the 
sun stands still and the window moves so quickly, the sun will 
instantly disappear from your vision." Vieta, a consummate 
algebraist, thought the Copernican system derived from a fal- 
lacious geometry. Montaigne said that probably before a 
thousand years a third system would supplant the two others. 
Descartes sometimes denied the Copernican theory. Bacon 
derided it as repugnant to natural philosophy. Pascal, in his 
"Thoughts," deemed it "wise not to sound the depths of the 
Copernican opinion." As late as 1806 the Milanese Pini, in 
his "Incredibility of the Movement of the Earth," sustained 
the Ptolemaic idea. 

f "Paradise," iv, 43-45. 



86 Galileo. 

4 'ceased to be regarded as the largest, warmest, 
and most illuminated of the planetary bodies. It 
no longer enjoyed a pre-eminence in creation as the 
home of a privileged being, but became one of many 
in the group of unexplored planets and in no way 
distinguished from the others. Fearing that science 
was aggrandizing itself only to war on God, the 
timid repudiated it. Only later did the better minds 
understand that the faith fears no learning; that 
historic criticism can be independent and impartial 
without becoming irreligious. Then good sense 
estimated at their true value the accusations 
launched against the Church because of the affair 
of Galileo ; it distinguished simple assertions from 
articles of faith, positive and necessary prohibitions 
from prudential and disciplinary provisions, the 
oracles of the Church from the deliberations of a 
particular tribunal. To such a tribunal a denun- 
ciation was made that Galileo or his disciples had 
asserted that God is an accident and not a substance, 
a personal being ; that miracles are not miracles at 
all. Then the Pontiff declared that, for the ter- 
mination of scandal, Galileo should be cited and 
admonished by the Sacred Congregation."* 

In endeavoring to discover what followed on 
Galileo's second summons before the Inquisition 
(concerning his first trial in 1615 there is no ques- 
tion as to either imprisonment or torture), it would 



* "Illustrious Italians," Milan, 1879. 



Galileo. 87 

appear to us that no better source of information can 
be desired than the original "Process." But since 
Libri,* Perchappe,f Bertrand,J and others insin- 
uate — according to what principles of criticism the 
reader must judge — that as this record has been 
nearly always in the hands of ecclesiastics, they 
may have destroyed evidence of their own cruelty, 
we will here adduce the testimony of the Tuscan 
Ambassador, Niccolini. This evidence ought to be 
acceptabe to our adversaries ; for the writer was an 
intense partisan of Galileo, and would not have 
hidden anything likely to excite sympathy for his 
hero. Acid to this the fact that these dispatches 
are directed to Galileo's own sovereign, himself a 
warm admirer of the philosopher. Galileo arrived 
in Rome on February 13, 1633, and under date of 
March 13 Niccolini writes : 

"The Pope told me that he had shown to Galileo 
a favor never accorded to another, in allowing him 
to reside in my house instead of in the Holy Office. 
. His Holiness said that he could not avoid 
having Galileo brought to the Holy Office for the 
examination ; and I replied that my gratitude would 
be doubled if he would exempt Galileo from this 
appearance, but he answered that he could not do 



* "History of Mathematical Science in Italy," Paris, 1841; 
vol. iv, pp. 155-294. 

t "Galileo: His Life and Discoveries," Paris, 1S66. 

% "Founders of Modern Astronomy," Paris, 1865. — When 
Napoleon invaded Rome in 1809, among the literary and his- 
torical monuments which he stole was the original Process of 



88 Galileo. 

so. . . . He concluded with the promise to assign 
Galileo certain rooms which are the most convenient 
in the Holy Office." On April 16 the Ambassador 
says: "He has a servant and every convenience. 
The reverend commissary assigned him the apart- 
ments of the judge of the tribunal. My own serv- 
ants carry his meals from my house. " . . . 

About two months later (June 18) Niccolini con- 
tinues: "I have again besought for a termination of 
the cause of Galileo, and His Holiness replied that 
the affair is ended, and that Galileo will be sum- 
moned some morning of next week to the Holy 
Office, to hear the decision. . . . In regard to the 
person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for 
some time, because he disobeyed the orders of 1616 ; 
but the Pope says that after the publication of the 
sentence he will consider with me as to what can be 
done to afflict him as little as possible." On June 
26: "Monday evening Galileo was summoned to 
the Holy Office, and on Tuesday morning he pro- 
ceeded thither to learn what was required of him. 
He was detained, and on Wednesday he was taken 



Galileo. The Holy See vainly demanded it from the govern- 
ment of the Restoration. While it was yet in France the 
astronomer Delambre consulted it, but very negligently, as is 
evinced by the inexactness of his quotations when writing to 
Venturi the letter published iu 1821 by the latter. Delambre 
did not appreciate the Process very highly, probably because, 
like Barbier ("Critical Examination of Historical Diction- 
aries, "Paris, 1820), he could find no proof of his own assertion 
that Galileo had been tortured. The volume was finally con- 
signed to Count Rossi, to be restored to the Vatican in 
1846, and there it still remains. 



Galileo. 89 

to the Minerva, before the lords-cardinals and the 
prelates of the Congregation, where the sentence 
was read, and he was forced to abjure his opinion. 
The sentence includes the prohibition of his book, 
and his condemnation to the prison of the Holy 
Office during the pleasure of His Holiness, because, 
as they declare, he disobeyed the order given him 
sixteen years ago in this matter.* But his con- 
demnation was commuted by His Holiness to a 
residence in the gardens of the Trinita dei Monti. " 
On July 3: "His Holiness told me that although it 
was rather early to diminish the penance of Galileo, 
he had been content to allow him to reside at first 
in the gardens of the Grand Duke, and that now 
he could proceed to Sienna, there to reside in a 
convent or with my lord the Archbishop." f 

According, therefore, to Niccolini, the imprison- 
ment of Galileo was merely nominal, and there is 
no mention of any infliction of torture. But let us 
examine further this question of torture. It is said 
that the Process itself furnishes an indication of the 



* Of the ten cardinals forming the tribunal, and all of 
whose names are at the head of the preamble, three did not 
sign the document. These were Gaspar Borgia, Zacchia, and 
Francis Barberini, nephew of Urban VIII. One of the signers, 
Anthony Barberini, a brother of the Pontiff and a Capuchin 
friar, tried hard to obtain a remission of the entire penance. 

f July 6 found Galileo at Sienna, dwelling with his old 
friend and disciple, the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini. 
On December 16, the Cardinal Francis Barberini having 
obtained this favor, he arrived at his own villa of Arcetri, and 
here he resided almost constantly until his death on January 
8, 1642. 



&0 Galileo. 

infliction of torture ; that in the fourth interroga- 
tory, on June 21, torture was menaced; that in the 
sentence the judges declared that they had "deemed 
it necessary to proceed to a rigorous examination" 
of the accused. It is true that torture was 
threatened, but the menace was not executed. In 
a decree issued by Urban VIII. on June 16, 1633, 
and first published by L'Epinois, it was ordered 
that Galileo "should be questioned as to his inten- 
tion [in publishing the 'Dialogue'], and that he 
should be menaced with torture. If he does not 
yield to the threat, he must be made to pronounce, 
in full session of the Holy Office, an abjuration for 
strong suspicion of heresy." 

On June 21, in the fourth and last interrogatory, 
but without any mention of the above decree, 
Galileo was questioned as to his intention in the 
"Dialogue" in regard to the Copernican system. 
In reply he would only admit that, cherishing 
his hypothesis, and feeling proud of the arguments 
adduced for it before 1616, he had given in the 
"Dialogue" more strength to the Copernican than 
to the other opinion. Kef using, therefore, to avow 
the imputed intention, he was threatened with tor- 
ture. Then he replied — with what truth let his 
ultra-admirers imagine: "I have not held the 
Copernican system since I was ordered to abandon it 
[seventeen years before]. But I am in your hands. 
Do with me what you will." This refusal to 
acknowledge the imputed intention had been fore- 



Galileo. 91 

seen by Pope Urban, and, as he had provided for 
the contingency, the tribunal did not fulfill the threat 
of torture, but proceeded to the act of abjuration. 
As for the words "rigorous examination" used in 
the sentence, they do not necessarily imply that tor- 
ture had been inflicted ; they can easily refer to the 
threat pronounced in the fourth interrogatory. 

But, according to the code of laws binding upon 
the inquisitors, which are fully given in the "Direc- 
tory" of Eymeric,* the official guide of the Holy 
Office, torture could not have been inflicted on Gali- 
leo. It is prescribed that when the accused denies 
the charges, and they have not been substantiated, 
and he has not yet furnished a good defence, he 
shall "be put to the question, in order that the 
truth may be reached,"— provided, however, that 
the consulters so advise. Now, Galileo was not 
obstinate ; he had no inclination to become a martyr 
for science. In his sentence the judges say: "We 
deemed it necessary to proceed to a rigorous ex- 
amination, and thou didst reply like a Catholic — 
respondisti Catholice.' > ' > Having thus answered, he 
could not be tortured. It is sad to hear him utter- 
ing what his judges must have known to be a lie: 
"For some time before the determination of the 



* "Directory for Inquisitors, by Friar Nicholas Eymeric, 
of the Order of Preachers; Commentated by Francis Pegna, 
S. T. D. and J. U. D., Auditor of Causes in the Apostolic 
Palace." Part III., on the "Practice of the Inquisitorial 
Office," chapter on the "Third Way of Ending a Trial for 
Faith." Venice, 1595. 



92 Galileo. 

Holy Office, and before I received that command 
[the order of 1616], I had been indifferent as to the 
two opinions of Ptolemy and Copernicus, and had 
held that both were disputable and that both could 
be true in nature. But after the above mentioned 
determination, being assured by the prudence of 
my superiors, all my doubts ceased, and I held, as I 
now hold, the theory of Ptolemy as true, — that is, 
that the earth does not, and the sun does move." If 
Galileo had undergone torture, he would scarcely 
have omitted to mention it among his many griev- 
ances, when, a few days after his departure from 
Rome, on July 23, he wrote from Sienna to Gioli, 
minister of the Grand Duke: "I address you, 
prompted by a desire to escape from the long weari- 
ness of a more than six months' imprisonment, and 
from the trouble and affliction of mind of a whole 
year, coupled with many inconveniences and bodily 
dangers." 

And now a few words as to the authenticity of 
the "E pur si muove." In the formula of abjura- 
tion, after having avowed that his "Dialogue" favors 
the "false" doctrine of the movement of the earth 
around the sun, and having admitted his violation of 
the prohibition of 1616, Galileo "affirms and swears, 
with his hand on the holy Gospels," that "with a 
sincere heart and unfeigned faith he abjures, anathe- 
matizes and detests the aforesaid errors and here- 
sies," for which he has been justly condemned as 
"strongly suspected of heresy." And he promises 
not only to abstain hereafter from all heretical 



Galileo. 93 

doctrine, but also to denounce all heretics to the 
Inquisition or to the ordinary of the locality. Mo- 
tives of both personal and general interest certainly 
decided an act of apparent submission; but in 
performing it Galileo could not, without risk of 
destroying himself, have given himself the ques- 
tionable satisfaction of a merely childish contra- 
diction. Undoubtedly he thought that the earth 
moved, and probably the inquisitors knew that he so 
thought. But had he made the famous remark, he 
would not have been dismissed two days afterward. 
If Galileo risked so much by the quoted ebullition 
at so fatally decisive a moment, how comes it that 
never after, either by speech or in writing, did he 
expressly contradict his abjuration by openly pro- 
fessing his system? Certainly, when writing in 
confidence to some intimates, he would insist upon 
his innocence from a religious point of view ; but 
in all other instances his reticence was persistent. 
Every opportunity and temptation to break this 
imposed silence was presented when he wrote to 
Diodati, then in Paris, on July 25, 1634, complain- 
ing of the violence of his enemies toward himself 
and his teachings, — a violence which he would 
answer only by silence. Nor does he contradict his 
abjuration in his letter written in 1637 to King 
Ladislaus of Poland, whom he asks to compare his 
"Dialogue" with the sentence pronounced against 
its author, and to see if its doctrine is more perni- 
cious than that of Luther and Calvin, as Urban 
VIII, was said to believe. Nor, again, does he 



94 Galileo. 

advocate his system in his letter to Pieresc on Feb- 
ruary 21, 1636, in which he insists on the injustice 
of his condemnation. When he writes to Rinuccini 
on March 29, 1641, he evades a direct answer to an 
attempt to obtain an avowal of his real mind. 



II. 

Having shown in the previous pages that the im- 
prisonment of Galileo was merely nominal, and that 
no torture was inflicted upon him, we must now 
briefly examine the decisions of the Roman Con- 
gregations in his case, with a view to their doctrinal 
consequences. Protestant polemics gladly proclaim 
these decisions as destructive of the Catholic doc- 
trine of Infallibility. Certain Catholic writers have 
enunciated views on the matter which can serve only 
to confirm the opinion that the Church and science 
are implacable foes. For instance, the Viscount de 
Bonald, with that severity which is generally char- 
acteristic of lay theologians, insists that the double 
movement of the earth has never been and never can 
be proved; that even to-day he who defends the 
Copernican system is ' 'guilty of rashness" in con- 
tradicting the natural sense of the Scriptures; that 
if the old system was an illusion, the Bible favors 
said illusion.* This author would advise, therefore, 



* "Galileo, the Holy Office, and the System of the World," 
in the Correspondent of Dec. 25, 1854. See also this author's 
"Moses and Modern Geologists," Avignon, 1835, 



Galileo. 95 

if he were logical, the Pope and the Roman In- 
quisition to revoke the decree of toleration issued in 
favor of the Galilean theory on September 17, 1822, 
and would have them condemn the many scientific 
ecclesiastics, like Secchi and Matignon, who "rashly 
oppose the natural sense" of the Scriptures.* 

Again, there are other Catholic critics whose 
views, though far more moderate than those of De 
Bonald, are almost equally untenable. Thus it is 
quite common to hear that Galileo was always 
allowed to teach his system "as an astronomical 
supposition;" whereas the official documents show 
that our philosopher was prohibited, in 1616, to 
uphold "said opinion in any way whatsoever;" 
and that in 1633 he was punished for having 
disobeyed this injunction by publishing a work 
in which there were no interpretations of sacred 
texts. Among the critics of this class the most 
eminent are the astronomer Lalande, | the Abbe 
Berault-Bercastel,J Bergier,§ and Feller, || — all of 
whom copy the Protestant Mallet du Pan, whose 
errors are carefully noted by Theodore Martin. H 



* In 1842 a certain Abbe" Matalene published in Paris abook 
entitled "Anti-Copernicus, a New Astronomy;" but bis ec- 
clesiastical superiors sharply reminded him that he had no 
right to compromise the clergy by such extravagancies. 

f "Voyage in Italy," 1786. % Eccl. Hist., 177S-S5. 

§ Diet. Theol. || Diet. Hist., art. "Galileo." 

If "Galileo and the Rights of Science," Paris, 1S68. — Among 
the errors of Mallet du Pan, which Martin with undue sever- 
ity stigmatizes as "lies," are to be noted his pretence that 
Bellarmine did not, in 1G16, interdict any astronomical hy- 



96 Galileo. 

Other Catholic polemics, such as Alzog* and 
Hoffler,f hold that the Copernican system, having 
been advanced too soon, was dangerous to both 
science and religion, and that this pretended fact 
justifies the action of the Inquisition. But the 
official records evince that the new system was con- 
demned as « 'false and altogether contrary to Scrip- 
ture," and not as a mere matter imprudently or 
prematurely advanced. Nay, more : the sentence of 
1633 expressly states that even though Galileo had 
presented his system only as probably true, still he 
would have offended ; for, in the words of the de- 
cree, "an opinion cannot be probable when it has 
been declared and defined to be contrary to Sacred 
Scripture." 

M. Adolphe Yalson J contends that the Coperni- 
can proposition concerning the movement of the 
earth was not condemned as "heretical," if taken by 
itself ; and that in condemning the other Copernican 



pothesis; the assertion that Galileo caused his apologetic let- 
ter to Christendom to be printed before his condemnation; the 
declaration that no imprimatur was really given for the publi- 
cation of Galileo's "Dialogue." Pretending to give extracts 
from a certain dispatch of Guicciardini, Mallet du Pan asserts 
that they show that Galileo wished to force the Pontiff to 
make a religious dogma of his system ; whereas the reading 
of the dispatch causes one to almost justify Martin when he 
says that Mallet "not only mistakes, but is an imposter." 

* Church Hist., Fr. transl., Paris, 1855, vol. iii, p. 249. 

t Encyc. Diet. Theol. Cath., art. "Galileo." 

% In the "Review of Christian Economy" for Dec, 1865, and 
Jan. and Feb., 1866. 



Galileo. 97 

theory on the non-movement of the sun, the In- 
quisition was right, since the sun has a movement of 
its own. As to the first assertion, it is true that the 
theory of the earth's movement was not condemned 
as "heretical," but it was declared "false and al- 
together contrary to Scripture." As to Yalson's 
second remark, there was no question of this special 
movement of the sun; this movement, toward the 
constellation of Hercules, was utterly unknown at 
that time ; but what the Inquisition forbade Galileo 
to deny was the movement of the sun around the 
earth. 

Yery different from the opinions of the above 
critics is that of Tiraboschi,* who admits that vulgar 
prejudices caused the prohibition of 1616, and the 
condemnation of 1633, and declares that these de- 
cisions were pronounced by a fallible tribunal, and 
not by the Church. He shows that at first Galileo 
found his discoveries favorably received in Rome, 
but that the angry Peripatetics soon adopted the 
Bible as a weapon against him. However, being 
ignorant of the fact that the Preface to the con- 
demned "Dialogue' ' had been written, not by Galileo, 
but by the examiner Riccardi, Tiraboschi accuses 
the scientist of bad faith. He declares that the 
Congregations erred because of a too great devotion 
to Peripateticism. 



* "First Historical Memoir, on the First Advocates of the 
Copernican System," read in the Modenese Academy del dis- 
sonanti in 1792, inserted in the Venetian edition of the '"Hist. 
Ital. Litt.," 1796. "Second Memoir, on the condemnation of 
Galileo and the Copernican System," read in 1793. 



98 Galileo. 

About the year 1825 Olivieri, General of the Do- 
minicans and commissary of the Holy Office, wrote 
a dissertation on the affair of Galileo,* in which 
he gave a very curious apology for the Congre- 
gations. The teachings of Copernicus and Galileo, 
said Olivieri, were not condemned because they did 
not agree with the Bible, but because these two 
scientists upheld them with bad arguments, which, 
being contrary to sound philosophy, seemed there- 
fore opposed to Scripture. If Galileo, continued 
Olivieri, had known the gravity of the air, and had 
not obstinately attributed the tides to a combination 
of the diurnal and annual revolutions of the earth, 
things would have gone differently ; for the Church 
has ever encouraged any real progress — one which 
is free from errors. Olivieri also contended that the 
real cause of all the misfortunes of Galileo was his 
having provoked the " vengeance" of Urban VIII. f 



* Not edited until 1855, in the "Universite Catholique." 
f In his "Dialogue on the Two Principal Mondial Sys- 
tems," published in 1632 with the approbation of the Master 
of the Apostolic Palace, Galileo assigns the exposition of his 
opinions to his friend and pupil, Salviati of Florence, then 
some time dead. Galileo himself is not named, but he is often 
indicated by the title of Linceo. The part of an investigator, im- 
partial and judicious, is filled by the Venetian senator, Sagredo, 
another deceased friend of the author. The defence of the 
Peripatetic system is confided to one Simplicius, who uses 
absurd arguments and will yield to none; who is, in fine, a 
fair representative of many of Galileo's opponents. Whether 
or not Urban VIII. credited the assertion of Galileo's enemies, 
that under the guise of Simplicius he himself was held up to 
ridicule, it is certain that now he manifested less sympathy 



Galileo. 99 

A decisive refutation of all these assertions has 
been given by Govi.* 

From the beginning of the affair of Galileo, re- 
marks Theodore Martin, five courses were open to 
the ecclesiastical authorities. The philosopher and 
his friends would have been satisfied if, firstly, it 
were acknowledged that the new system was not 
contrary to Catholic faith; secondly, if liberty of 
discussion were allowed in its regard; and, thirdly, 
if both the Copernicians and Peripatetics were for- 
bidden to adduce Biblical texts in their debates. 
Certainly ecclesiastical tradition as well as prudence, 
both ever favorable to toleration in such matters, 
would seem to have counselled one of these three 
courses. Cardinal Matthew Barberini, afterward 
Pope Urban VIII., Cardinal Bellarmine, and other 
moderate Peripatetics, preferred a fourth course, — 
namely, to leave liberty only to the Peripatetics, 
and, while not deciding against the new system, 
to interdict it as rash and dangerous under the 
circumstances. In 1632 Urban VIII. adopted a 



for the philosopher. Just previous to this period the Pontiff 
had declared to the Benedictine Castelli that if it had de- 
pended on him, the decree of 1616 would not have been issued. 
On March 16, 1630, Castelli wrote to Galileo that in an inter- 
view with the celebrated Campanella, "his Holiness used 
these very words: 'We never desired that decree; and had it 
depended on us it would not have been issued.' " This letter 
is found in Alberi's edition of the "Works of Galileo," vol. ix, 
p. 196. 

* "The Holy Office, Copernicus, and Galileo, considered in 
reference to a posthumous dissertation of Father Olivieri," 
Turin, 1872. 



100 Galileo. 

fifth course, — namely, to procure the condemnation 
of the Copernican system as false in philosophy, 
erroneous in theology, and contrary to Sacred 
Scripture. 

Now arises the question : By whom was the doc- 
trine of the movement of the earth thus condemned ? 
Certainly, it was through the influence of Paul V. 
and of Urban VIII., respectively, that the decisions 
of 1616 and 1633 were rendered; but neither their 
authority as Pontiffs nor that of the Church was 
implicated. As men these Popes were opposed to 
the system of Galileo, but as Popes their names are 
not signed in the famous decisions. Both are pub- 
lished only in the name of the Congregations. This 
absence of the Pontifical ratification is remarked 
by Descartes in three letters to Mersenne, and by 
Gassendi.* The Jesuit Riccioiif invokes against 
the teachings of Galileo the authority of "the Con- 
gregations delegated by the Pope," but he does not 
contend that the Pope can delegate his infallibility. 
The absence of the Pontifical ratification in the 
decisions against Galileo is noted by the Benedic- 
tine Caramuel,t who, after declaring that the new 
system is absurd, asks himself what the Church 
would do if, "which is impossible," the movement 
of the earth were ever demonstrated. He replies 
that the Church would declare that "the Roman 



* "Impressed Motion," Lyons, 1658, vol. iii, epist. 2. 

t "Almagestum Novum," Bologna, 1651, vol. i, pt. 2, p.4S9. 

X "Fundamental Theology," Lyons, 1676. The passages 
are cited by Bouix, in his "Condemnation of Galileo," Arras, 
1866, pp. 25-29. 



Galileo. 101 

Congregations, having decided without the Papal 
ratification, were mistaken." 

In fine, let it be remembered that neither in 1616 
nor in 1633 did the supreme authority of the Church 
pronounce a decision concerning the Copernican 
system. Muratori, writing in Italy a century before 
the works of Galileo were removed from the Index, 
says that the Copernican system was condemned 
"not by an edict of the Supreme Pontiff, but by 
the Congregation of the Holy Office. . . . To-day 
this system is everywhere in vogue, and Catholics 
are not forbidden to hold it. "* Tiraboschi specially 
insists on our admiring the "Providence of God in 
favor of His Church; since, at a time when the 
majority of theologians firmly believed that the 
Copernican system was contrary to the Sacred Scrip- 
tures, the Church was not permitted to give a solemn 
decision on the matter."! No Catholic will assert 
that the Roman Inquisition has never committed 
any errors ; and in the case of Galileo it was the 
Inquisition that erred, and not the Pontiff; and 
even though the Pontiff had erred, the decision was 
not one concerning faith or morals, — one, that is, 
which can form the object matter of Infallibility. 

"Whenever," says Cantu, "there is opened anew 
scientific, or philosophical horizon, even the most 
elevated intellects are stricken with fright, as when 
America was discovered, and when steam and elec- 



* "Annals of Italy," at year 1633. 
f "Memoir II.," loc. cit. 



102 Galileo. 

tricity were first applied. What wonder if contra- 
diction befell the Copernican system, which ap- 
peared to subvert the order not only of the physical 
but of the moral world ; which seemed to threaten 
faith and morals, just as it changed the reciprocal 
position of the heavenly bodies? What wonder if 
it seemed impious and scandalous to subject man 
and his habitation to the same laws which regulate 
the other phenomena of nature? Was it not for 
this reason that, quite recently, Hegel denied the 
movement of the earth? When the Reformation 
had spread, and men were substituting their in- 
dividual for the canonical interpretation of the 
Scriptures, churchmen were frightened on seeing 
certain verses interpreted in a new manner, and 
they went so far as to condemn Galileo. Nor 
should we forget that until Faucolt furnished it, in 
our own days, there was no physical proof of the 
movement of the earth. Faucolt gave it in the 
progressive deviation of the oscillating plane of a 
pendulum suspended from a fixed point. But no 
serious person will repeat the absurdities of Libri,* 
of Arduini, f and of similar writers, confuted by 
Biot,J Alberi, Martin, and by common-sense." 

He who would understand the great catastrophe 
in the life of Galileo must consult the writings of the 



* Loc, cit. 

t "The first Born of Galileo," Florence, 1864. 
t In Michaud's "Universal Biography," and in two disser- 
tations in the Journal des Savants for March, July and October, 

1858. 



Galileo. 103 

scientist, and the invaluable documents published 
by Alberi in his great edition of the "Works."* 
It is not true, as Libri and, after him, many 
Protestants insist, that the officers of the Inquisi- 
tion destroyed or secreted nearly all the papers of 
Galileo. All his principal works remain, and nearly 
all the minor ones. A few of his MSS. were de- 
stroyed by one of his grandsons, who felt some 
scruples about preserving any writings of one con- 
demned by the Holy Office. Most of the important 
works and of the correspondence were collected by 
Galileo's disciple, Viviani, who bequeathed them to 
a nephew, Panzanini ; the heirs of this nephew sold 
some of them as waste-paper, but nearly all were 
recovered by Giambattista Nelli, whose son Clement 
used them and part of Viviani's collection in his 
"Life of Galileo," published in 1793. When 
publishing his edition of the "Works," Alberi 
promised to give to the world a Life based upon 
documents in his hands, but he failed to do so. 
However, this Life would not have been complete, 
as there were many documents which he could not 
procure. Thanks to Father Theiner, Prefect of 
the Vatican Archives, who communicated these 
papers to M. Henri de 1'Epinois, the world received, 
in 1867, much light on the affairs of the great 
scientist, in the valuable work of L'Epinois.f 



* la sixteen large volumes, Florence, 1S42-56. 
f "Galileo : His Process and Condemnation, According to 
Unedited Documents." 



THE GREY CARDINAL. 

As has been the case with nearly all great men, 
Cardinal Eichelieu had his alter ego 3 to whom he 
perhaps owed much of his success and celebrity, 
and to whom he was certainly indebted for aid in 
bearing burdens such as probably have fallen to the 
lot of no other Minister of State. During the 
greater part of his official career, wherever was dis- 
cerned the sheen of the great Minister's carclinali- 
tial red, not far off, although generally in the back- 
ground, was the ashenhued tunic of Friar Joseph. 
"I have lost my consolation and my support," 
moaned Eichelieu when death laid his hand on the 
Capuchin. 

Few historians have given much time to Friar 
Joseph. His constant devotion to the great Minis- 
ter, his invariable connection with every political 
act of that prelate, gave him the designation of 
the Grey Cardinal — "son Eminence grise" — and 
he was the red cardinal's familiar demon. This is 
about all which is told us by Bazin* and by Henri 
Martin, f who have dwelt more on this subject than 
other writers. The impressive play of Bulwer is the 
source of the ideas that most people have concerning 
both Eichelieu and his Capuchin secretary, and these 



* "Histoire de France sous de Louis XIII," vol. iv, p. 115. 
t "Histoire de France," 4nie edit., vol. xi, p. 491. 
104 



The Grey Cardinal. 105 

ideas are as just as would be an estimate of Joan of 
Arc derived from the absurd play of Schiller or the 
obscene poem of Voltaire. According to Bulwer, 
the friar-secretary was a man of low cunning — a 
sneak, but at the same time ambitious, and he was 
as ready to betray the secrets of the confessional as 
his master was to use them. 

In a future article we shall have occasion to speak 
of the morality of Richelieu, but at present we would 
ask the reader's attention to a brief sketch of the 
career of the humble Capuchin, who may well be 
numbered among the many celebrated statesmen 
that have been found in the cloister. Although less 
famous, because the subject of less attention, than 
the two Abbots Suger, than St. John Capistrano, 
than the Franciscans Calatagirone andXimenes,his 
career must be interesting, if only because of its 
connection with that of the great Richelieu. 

Francois le Clere du Tremblay was born of noble 
parents in 1577. From his sixteenth year he desired 
to become a religious, but to please his family he 
entered the army, and at the siege of Amiens 
was noticed for his bravery by the Constable de 
Montmorency. When his relative, M. de Mesle de 
Berzean, was sent as extraordinary ambassador to 
Elizabeth of England, the young Francois accom- 
panied him, and the woes of the English Catholics 
and the many devastations of heresy so excited the 
zeal of the apostolate in his heart, that on his return 
to France in 1599 he joined the Capuchin branch of 
the Franciscan Order. He soon acquired fame as 



106 The Grey Cardinal. 

a preacher and controversialist, and it was while 
engaged in a mission at Poitou, in 1619, that he 
formed his first relations with Armand du Plessis de 
Richelieu, then Bishop of Lucon. 

Friar Joseph (for such was the name adopted by 
Du Tremblay in religion) soon became cognizant of 
the sublime genius and extraordinary administrative 
talent of the provincial prelate, and he drew the 
attention of the Queen, Marie de Medici, to his dis- 
covery. This was the starting point of Richelieu's 
glorious career. But Friar Joseph had been known 
as a zealous churchman and as an accomplished 
diplomatist several years before he became connected 
with Richelieu. In 1615 Rome had appreciated his 
apostolic spirit, when, bearing letters of approba- 
tion from Louis XIII., he laid before the Holy See 
three grand projects — viz., the establishment of 
permanent missions to combat heresy in France ; a 
new crusade against the Crescent; and the founda- 
tion of the Daughters of Calvary, a society destined 
to perpetual meditation on the woes of Mary at the 
feet of her crucified Son.* 

Joseph's first diplomatic achievement was the ef- 
fecting of the Treaty of Loudun, in 1615, between the 
court and the faction of the Prince du Conde, with- 



* The Holy See accorded Friar Joseph full powers for the 
establishment of missions in France. As for the crusade, the 
Pontiff gave him briefs ad hoc for the Kings of France and 
Spain, and. undertook to influence the Emperor, the Italian 
princes, and the King of Poland, in the scheme. The crusade 
was a failure, but the missions and the foundation of the 



The Grey Cardinal. 107 

out that schismatic clause which the Third Estate — 
then composed chiefly of heretics and bad Catholics 
— wished to insert: i. e., that the King, being sover- 
eign in his realm, could recognize in it no superior, 
spiritual or temporal.* To compass the withdrawal 
of this clause, the royal Minister Villeroi sought 
the aid of our friar, then making his provincial 
visitation to the houses of his order in Poitou. 
The Nuncio Ubadani also added his entreaties, and 
Joseph, who had long ago gained the esteem of 
Conde, began a series of negotiations which finally 
succeeded ; and thus was obviated a danger which 
threatened France with the same horrors as those 
experienced by England at the hands of Henry VIII. 
That this blessing was due to the exertions of the 
Capuchin Provincial, was openly acknowledged by 
Villeroi, who, entering Tours after the signature of 
the treaty, cried out to the applauding citizens : 
"Thank not me, but Friar Joseph!" 

Marie de Medici did not forget the warm recom- 
mendation of the Bishop of Lugon proffered by the 
humble Capuchin. It was through her influence 
that Eichelieu was raised to the cardinalate in 1622, 
and two years afterward was made Prime Minister 
of France. One of his first acts was to send the 
following letter to Friar Joseph : 



Daughters of Calvary succeeded. The name of one of the 
Boulevards of Paris perpetuates to this day the memory of 
this pious foundation. 

* Against this proposition Cardinal du Perron delivered 
one of his most powerful discourses. 



108 The Grey Cardinal 

As you have been the chief agent used by God in according 
me my present honors, I feel it a duty to inform you, before 
all others, that the King has hearkened to the Queen's prayer 
to appoint me his Prime Minister. I also beg you to make all 
possible haste to come and share with me the management of 
affairs, some of which are of such a nature that I can confide 
them to no other person. Come, then, at once to receive the 
proof of the esteem in which you are held by the 

Cardinal de Kichelieu. 

Joseph obeyed the summons, but as he never, 
amid all his occupations, forgot his duty to his 
Order, he prepared to journey to Eome to attend 
the approaching General Chapter of the Francis- 
cans. The Cardinal Minister made no objections, 
but availed himself of the opportunity to entrust his 
secretary with the settlement of many difficulties 
then troubling his Italian policy, notably the ques- 
tion of the Valteline — a knotty dispute between the 
Grisons and Valtelins, principally owing to religious 
differences. In this controversy were involved the 
King of France and the House of Austria-Spain, 
the Duke of Savoy and the Holy See. So well 
did Joseph acquit himself of his difficult task that 
he merited the encomiums of all the disputants, 
and strengthened his influence for evermore with 
Richelieu. 

We can not, of course, follow the details of Friar 
Joseph's political career, but we must not omit to 
notice one of his most brilliant strokes of statesman- 
ship — the reduction of La Rochelle. This bulwark 
of Calvinism in France, this centre of rebellion and 
constant menace against the integrity of French 
nationality, had defied the crown for two hundred 



The Grey Cardinal. 109 

years. From the day of its revolt against Louis XI. 
in favor of his brother, the Duke of Guyenne, down 
to the capture of Amiens by Henry IV., devotion 
to France had been an unknown quantity to the 
Rochellois ; and as soon as the latter event ceased 
to impress their minds, they made war on Louis 
XIII. Many good patriots deemed the reduction 
of La Rochelle impossible ; many also thought that 
Louis would do better by aiding Mantua and Mont- 
ferrat against Spain than by warring against his 
own subjects, rebels though they were. But Friar 
Joseph realized, and he forced the King, Richelieu, 
and the great Cardinal de Berulle to realize, that La 
Rochelle was a hot-bed of discord for France, that it 
was a port of entry for hostile foreigners, especially 
for the English, whose Queen had been convinced by 
Blancard, the Rochellois deputy, that it was better 
for her to lose Ireland than to permit the surrender 
of La Rochelle to King Louis; that Huguenot re- 
bellion and Protestant arrogance would continue to 
torment France so long as the formidable rock re- 
mained the arsenal of treason. 

The celebrated siege of La Rochelle was under- 
taken, and Friar Joseph — present to the end — was 
its moving spirit : advising with the engineers whom 
he had employed to construct the famous dike; 
animating the spirits of the soldiers, and working 
as indefatigable as did Angouleme or Bassompierre. 
Of course Richelieu was also on the spot, and had 
been intrusted by Louis XIII. with absolute com- 
mand; but so great was the part of the Capuchin 



110 The Grey Cardinal. 

secretary in the siege, that after it had been brought 
to a successful issue, the King publicly avowed that, 
like Abraham, the friar had hoped against hope, 
that God had rewarded his faith, and that history 
would accord to him an equal share with the Cardi- 
nal de Berulle of the glory attending the enterprise. 

Friar Joseph has been called ambitious, and yet 
he constantly refused many dignities offered him. 
The See of Albi was tendered him in vain, as well 
as the projected diocese of La Rochelle. Certainly 
King Louis XIII. again and again named him to 
the Holy See (firstly in 1635) for a cardinal's 
hat,* but we know not whether, if accorded him, 
he would have accepted the honor voluntarily; he 
always protested to Richelieu that the habit of St. 
Francis was the dearest thing to him on earth. In 
view of the prevalent idea that the friar-secretary 
was an unscrupulous intriguer and an associate of 
roysterers, it is curious to note that, according to 
the records of the time, he was as faithful to his 
monastic duties as any friar in the cloister. 

We take from Barthelemyf a summary of our 
friar's daily life at court. He arose at four, prayed 
for an hour, and then recited the Office as far as 
Sext with his constant companion, Father Ange. 
Then he labored at his multifarious correspondence 






* '-Memorie Kecondite dalP Anno 1601 fino al 1610," in the 
"Negociations duMarechal d'Estrees et Siri," Paris, 1677. 

t "Mensonges et Erreurs Historiques," 6me edit., Paris, 
1880. 



Tlie Grey Cardinal 111 

with the French agents at foreign courts, generally 
conducted in cipher; and this work must have been 
immense, for he received a duplicate of every dis- 
patch sent to the King. At nine he gave audience 
to ambassadors and to the secretaries of state, con- 
ducting them, when necessary, to Eichelieu. Only 
at midday did he celebrate Mass, the Cardinal gen- 
erally assisting. After breakfast — which, like all 
his meals, was taken with Father Ange, and during 
which some pious book was always read, — audiences 
occupied him until four, when he finished the Office 
and made a meditation. From five until eight he 
shut himself in his library. At eight he supped or 
dined, and the rest of the day was spent in the 
cabinet of Eichelieu ; and probably these final hours 
were the most laborious of all. 

Friar Joseph was sixty-one years of age when, a 
stroke of apoplexy warning him to prepare for death, 
he retired to a house of his Order in the Eue Saint- 
Honore, despite the solicitations of Eichelieu. But 
the Cardinal availed himself of an important busi- 
ness conference with the Cardinal de Bichi to insist 
on Joseph's return. The friar acquiesced, attended 
the conference, but was seized the same day by a 
second stroke, and died three days afterward, 
December 18, 1638. He was buried with all the 
honors due to a cardinal, and was followed to the 
tomb by the Parliament and all that was noble in 
Paris. Eichelieu composed the following epitaph, 
which was engraved on the tomb : 



112 The Grey Cardinal. 

"In everlasting memory of the Rev. Father Jo- 
seph le Clerc, Capuchin. — Here lies one whose 
virtues will never be forgotten; one who, in order 
to bear the yoke of the Lord, abandoned in his 
youth parents, titles, and wealth, and lived very 
poor in a very poor Order. Made Provincial in 
that Order, he benefited the Church by his writings 
and his discourses. He filled many public offices, 
to which he was providentially called by the Most 
Christian King Louis, in a holy and a prudent man- 
ner; carefully serving God, his prince, and his 
country, with seraphic devotion and wonderful 
tranquillity of spirit. He observed, to the last day 
of his life, the entire rule to which he had dedicated 
himself; although, for the good of the Church, he 
had been dispensed from it by three successive 
Pontiffs. By his missions and his advice he re- 
sisted heresy in France and in England, and he 
sustained the courage of the Christians in the East. 
Amid the wealth and the allurements of the court 
he led a life of poverty and austerity, and before 
his death had been named to the cardinalate." 



"I AM THE STATE!"— DID LOUIS XIV. 
EVER SAY SO? 

"The Guard dies, it never surrenders!" Many 
of us, in the days of our youth, have cherished this 
saying; and when cold investigation proved that 
Cambronne gave a much less theatrical, although 
more military, reply to the English summons, we 
felt something like real grief on our disenchant- 
ment. And such has been the fate of many other 
wordy sparks which served to shed a deceitful light 
on our boyish conceptions of history. Now that we 
are more ready to doubt, now that we realize that the 
reality generally differs from the ideal, we hesitate to 
accept as authentic many of the verbal scintillations 
which some would-be historians ascribe to their 
heroes. Of course, the world's greatest ones must 
necessarily let fall some observations which are 
really indicative of their role on the stage of life ; 
but, alas ! too many of their imputed sayings have 
no foundation better than the imagination of a bi- 
ographer; or, at best, no better than that furnished 
by the theories of partisans, who have fancied that, 
in similar circumstances, they themselves would have 
so spoken. 

Take, for instance, the "UEtat — c'est mot 9 ' 
ascribed to Louis XIV. So firmly are most moderns 

113 



114 "I am the State:' 

convinced that the great monarch was guilty of this 
arrogance, that they adduce it as a verbal picture of 
his entire reign ; and if perchance any one doubts 
that the very words were uttered, they are at least 
accepted, in accordance with the Italian proverb, as 
"if not true, certainly well invented." But did 
Louis XIV. ever use this phrase? Did the self- 
contained, dignified, and gentlemanly sovereign of 
then polite France descend so low as to use such 
language, and in circumstances and with adjuncts 
befitting a guard-room, perhaps, but assuredly not 
appropriate in the presence of a parliament? Vol- 
taire tells us that in 1655 the seventeen-year-old 
King rushed into the parliament chamber, "in top- 
boots, and whip in hand," and ordered the president 
to put an end to such assemblages.* But Voltaire 
gives no authority for this assertion, and, as has 
been well observed, his own age renders it improb- 
able that he had heard of the event from an eye- 
witness, f If he did, it is strange that not one 
contemporary author mentions the supposed fact. 
The younger Lacretelle, writing in 1820 in the 
"Biographie Michaud" (vol. xxv), repeats the 
story of Voltaire, and so does Sismondi in his 
"History of the French" (vol. xxiv). 

Henri Martin carefully notes the King's whip and 
top-boots ; but it is strange that so grave an author 



* "Steele de Louis XIV.," chap. 25. 

f Barthelemy: "Erreurs etMensongesHistoriques," vol.ii; 
Paris, 1886, 5th edit, 



u l am the State" 115 

should confound the "bed of justice" — a solemn 
session of Parliament, during which the King sat on 
a pile of cushions — with a piece of bedroom furni- 
ture, and that he should find fault with the royal 
uncouthness in going to bed with boots and spurs 
unremoved.* Then Martin informs us that Louis 
prohibited all self-initiated meetings of Parliament, 
in "four words;" that is, this author insinuates 
that the monarch cried, "I am the State," when the 
president pleaded that the good of the country 
might require such meetings. Lavalee | and Bonne- 
chose % also harp on the boots, spurs, and whip of 
the young King, "who could well say, 'L'Etat — 
c'est moi;' " that is, according to these writers, if he 
did not use these very words, he might well have 
done so ; "for they were the sincere expression of a 
belief, and even the simple expression of a fact." 

Dareste observes ( "Histoire de France," vol. v, p. 
353), that the first writer to mention the whip in 
the hand of Louis on this occasion was the Abbe 
Choisy, who wrote about the year 1700 ; but who, 
admits Dareste (who believes in the boots and 
spurs), was by no means a reliable authority. But 
Barthelemy says that he read and re-read the 
"Memoirs" of the Abbe, published in the "Collec- 
tion Petitot" (series ii, vol. lxiii), without finding 
any mention of the whip. As for the top-boots 



* "Histoire de France," vol. xii,p.467; Paris, 185S, 4th edit, 
f "Histoire des Francais," vol. iii, p. 197; Paris, 1847. 
t In the "Biographic Didot," article "Louis XIV," 



116 "I am the State" 

which displeases so many, and which Voltaire puts 
on the King during his supposed outburst against 
the Parliament in April, 1655, one of the most 
impartial writers of modern France, A. Cheruel, 
draws our attention to the fact that the King was 
hunting when he suddenly resolved on facing his 
Parliament; and that, at any rate, if he had not 
gone in his carriage, he would necessarily have been 
in top-boots, for these were then the habitual foot 
gear of three-fourths of the population. And, after 
reminding us that Paris still deserved its ancient 
name, Lutetian, this author cites the commissary La- 
Mare, who says that "those of us who saw the com- 
mencement of the reign of his Majesty Louis XIV., 
remember how the streets of Paris were so muddy 
that it was necessary to wear top-boots.* 

Now, there is no good foundation for this story 
of whip, boots, and spurs ; nor is there any at all 
for its adorning phrase, "I am the State." The 
Duke de Noailles, who was the first to draw atten- 
tion to this matter, f says: "Louis XIV., resolute 
in abolishing the political pretensions advanced by 
the Parliament after the Fronde, and in restricting 
that body to its judiciary functions, may have shown 
some passion in the execution of his task, but he 



* "Traits de la Police." Cheruel: "Histoire de r Ad- 
ministration Monarchique en France depuis l'Avenement de 
Phillippe Auguste jusqu'a la Mort de Louis XIV.," vol. ii, p. 
32; Paris, 1855. 

f "Histoire de Mme. de Maintenon," vol. iii ? p. 667; 
Paris ? 1848-58. 



" t am the State." 117 

never acted in the cavalier fashion attributed to 
him — a fashion so little consistent with his ideas of 
the royal dignity, and with his respect for the great 
bodies of the State. He executed his design, firstly, 
in the session of December 22, 1665, with all the 
solemnity of a 'bed of justice;' and, secondly, 
without that solemnity, in the session of April 20, 
1667. . . . These were the only sessions at which 
Louis XIV. assisted, and the 'Journal' of Olivier d' 
Ormesson, which enters into minute details of them, 
makes no mention of the arrogant speech- which 
has been so much censured." And it is to be noted 
that the "Journal" cited by De Noailles is most 
favorable to the parliamentary cause, and therefore 
it would not have omitted to record any arrogance 
on the part of the monarch. 

Nothing can be more absurd than the supposition 
fostered by our modern doctrinaires, and almost 
universally accepted, that all France was submis- 
sive to the nod of Louis XIY. "When we see the 
royal power so extensive and so effective," says De- 
Tocqueville, "we might be led to believe that all 
independence of spirit had disappeared with public 
liberty, and that the French had become used to 
subjection ; if so, we would be greatly mistaken, for 
the old regime was not one of servility. Amid many 
institutions already prepared for absolute power, 
liberty survived."* Louis XIV. well knew, re- 



* "Ancien Regime et la Revolution," chap, xi; Paris, 
1856. 



'%i 



118 "I am the State." 

marks De Carne,* "how to direct reform without 
unchaining revolution; and he was always influ- 
enced by the truly liberal ideas which had slowly 
but surely made their way from the time of St. 
Louis to that of Eichelieu." 

No ruler has ever been so much and perhaps so 
extravagantly praised by the literary men of his day 
as Louis XIV. ; but, to use the words of De Noailles, 
the universal hymn was sincere, and it contained 
many daring expressions which excluded all ser- 
vility. The duties of a sovereign have seldom been 
more clearly enunciated than they were by Racine, 
in his great play of "Athalie" (act 4, scene 3), 
which was first presented, before the grand mon- 
arch's whole court, in 1691; that is, at a period 
when he was in the very zenith of his glory, and 
therefore, as is presumed, at the culmination of his 
arrogance. The same may be said of the address 
of Boileau to the King, in 1669, one year after the 
taking of Aix-la-Chapelle ; and of many sentiments 
in the "Characters" of LaBruyere. Let the reader 
examine these passages, and then decide whether 
it is at all probable that the monarch who per- 
mitted, nay gladly acclaimed, such sentiments, would 
have exclaimed : "£' Etat — c'est moi." 

While Louis XIV. was yet a boy. Cardinal Maz- 
arin said of him that "he had in him the material 



* "L'Ecole Administrative de Louis XIV.," in the Revue 
des Deux Mondes, July, 1857. 



"1 am the State" 119 

for four kings and an honest man;"* and if we 
read the "Memoirs" which the King prepared for 
the guidance of his heir, we shall not only find 
much truth in the saying of the Cardinal-Minister, 
but we will agree with the not too partial Sismondi 
when he says that "these 'Memoirs' give an exalted 
idea of the extent and accuracy of the King's views, 
and show us how hard he labored to perform his 
duty as a ruler, and also how profound was the 
moral sentiment which animated him. "f In these 
"Memoirs," remarks Barthelemy, Louis shows us 
the sense in which he would have used the famous 
phrase, if it ever could have been uttered by him. 
He would simply have meant to express the idea of 
a community of interest subsisting between king and 
country: "My son, we must think much more of 
the welfare of our subjects than of our own. It 
would seem that they are a part of ourselves, for 
they are the members of a body of which we are 
the head. It is only for their advantage that we 
should make laws for them, and our power over 
them should be exercised solely for their well being. 
. . . The position of a king is great, noble, and 
flattering, when the king feels that he can fulfill all 
the engagements into which he has entered. . . . 
When the king has the State before his mind, he 
labors for himself : the welfare of one is the glory 



* Saint-Simon: "Memoires," vol. xxiv, p. 84, edit. 1840. See 
"Letters of Guy Patin," vol. ii, cited by Barthelemy, loc. cit, 
f Loc. cit., p. 3. 



120 "7 am the State.' 9 

of the other. When the State is prosperous and' 
powerful, he who is the cause of all this is glorious, 
and he consequently enjoys, even more than his 
subjects, the agreeable side of life." 

And Henri Martin admits that in these ' 'Mem- 
oirs," "Louis reveals himself entirely, as he was 
during the first and best part of his reign. He 
shows great good sense, an honesty which fails only 
in some thorny paths of diplomacy, very religious 
sentiments, and ideas as clear as his views are firm. 
We realize that the man was truly born for empire 
who could write such words concerning the severe 
enjoyments of labor and of duty, and on the noble 
pleasure of governing. He seemed to thoroughly 
understand the obligations of the head of the State, 
and that the national unity was personified in him- 
self. He feared flatterers, and tried to avoid them. 
The pride which sometimes manifests itself in his 
grave and haughty language may be accounted for 
by the testimony of his satisfied conscience."* 



* "I have almost had to wait — J'ai failli attentive," is an- 
other phrase which is often ascribed to the exquisitely polite 
Louis XIV. Such a petitesse would not have escaped the 
notice of the crotchety Duke de Saint-Simon, but he tells us, 
on the contrary, in his "Memoires," vol. xii, that "the king 
never allowed an uncomplaisant word to escape him, and if 
he had to reprimand or correct, which rarely happened, he 
always did so with more or less of kindness, never with anger, 
and seldom with asperity." 



THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INQUISITION. 

I. 

Since the Church is the sole depositary and inter- 
preter of revealed divine truth on earth, ought she 
not use every legitimate means to prevent the propa- 
gation of error? This is the most available argu- 
ment wherewith to defend the Inquisition; and its 
force can be diminished only by insisting on the 
illegitimacy of the tribunal, and of its methods, as 
means to preserve the integrity of the Christian 
body . In the Middle Age every person who impeded 
the progress of religion, or who placed an obstacle 
in his neighbor's path to heaven, was regarded as an 
enemy to society. The civil law was supposed to 
protect the faith as much as, if not more than, life 
or property. The use of force to prevent a heretic 
from sowing the seeds of religious dissension in a 
united community, seemed to be no less legitimate 
than resistance to a foreign invader or a domestic 
highwayman. Nor did this idea first manifest itself 
in the so-called Dark Ages: from the day when 
Constantine gave liberty to the Church, we hear the 
Fathers insisting that repression of error is a proper 
defence against persecution and seduction. This 
repression was not always exercised in the same 
manner: it varied according to the exigencies of 

121 



122 The Truth About the Inquisition* 

the public weal. We find instances of "conten- 
tious" and coercive jurisdiction enforced by the 
ecclesiastical authorities in the very first days of 
Christianity. The lying Ananias and Saphira fall 
dead at the imperious voice of St. Peter; an inces- 
tuous man is consigned to the vexations of the 
demon ; St. Polycarp styles Marcion, who seeks his 
friendship, the first-born of Satan ;* and St. Ignatius 
commends the zeal of those Corinthians who so 
detested heresy that they would not allow its pro- 
fessors to pass through their territories.! In the 
Code of Justinian we read many decrees of the early 
Christian emperors in defence of the integrity of 
the faith; Constantine issued two, Valentinian I. 
one, Gratian two, Theodosius I. fifteen, Yalentinian 
II. three. Constantine pursued the Donatists with 
fines and confiscations, % and burned the books of 
the Arians. Theodosius banished heretics, § and 
Honorius ordered the scourging and imprisonment 
of Jovinian and his followers, after their condemna- 
tion by Pope Siricius.|| St. Augustine speaks of 
having received from the deacon Quod Vult Deus 
a copy of the proceedings of an inquisition held at 
Carthage against certain Manicheans;H and he him- 
self proceeded against the subdeacon Yictorinus, a 
Manichean, and after a formal trial degraded him 



* Irenseus, b. iii, c. 3. f Epist. to Ephes. 

% Optatus of Milevi, b. iii. 

§ Baronio, y. 383, no. 34. || Idem, y. 390, no. 47. 

1 "Heresies," to Quod Vult Deus, c. 46. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 123 

and procured his banishment from Hippo.* St. 
Epiphanius gives an account of the process insti- 
tuted by the Patriarch of Alexandria against Arius, 
which is interesting because of the close resem- 
blance of its forms to those used by the modern 
Inquisition.! The same Saint tells us that he en- 
deavored to discover Gnostics, and that hence 
6 i fifty were exiled, leaving the city free from their 
thorns. "J In fact, there occur, during the first 
centuries of Christianity, so many instances of 
inquisitorial action against heretics, that the Fran- 
ciscan De Castro, writing at the time of the Kefor- 
mation, could well say that the system "was not 
introduced only three hundred years ago, as Luther 
asserts: it originated a thousand years ago, and 
we may infer that it came down from apostolic 
times." § 

The Inquisition never attempted to force a pro- 
fession of Christianity on infidels or Jews; in order 
that heresy should be punishable, it was necessary 
that a sufficiently instructed Christian should per- 
severe in error, and manifest in action his opposition 
to the authority of the Church. St. Thomas of 
Aquin, asking whether infidels can be compelled to 
accept the faith, replies that "they are in no way to 
be forced to believe, for belief is from the will;"|| 
and he contends that the worship of heretics is to 



* Epist. 236 alias 74. t 4t Heresies," 69. 

t Ibi., 26, no. 17. 

§ "Just Punishment of Heretics," Paris, 1565. 

|| Surama Theol., q. 10, art. 8. 



124 The Truth About the Inquisition, 

be tolerated, just as God tolerates certain evils, that 
man may not lose his liberty. Suarez gives as the 
common teaching of theologians the doctrine that 
* 'infidels who are not apostates ought not to be com- 
pelled to embrace the faith, even though they have 
acquired a suflicient knowledge of it . " The Council 
of Trent declares that "the Church judges no one 
who has not entered her fold by Baptism."* 

In the early ages of the Church the penalty of 
death was seldom inflicted upon heretics. The 
Emperor Maximus was the first Christian prince 
to adopt this questionable method of preserving 
religious unity. In 385 he put to death Priscillian, 
Bishop of A vila, two priests, two deacons, the 
poet Latronianus, and Eucrosia, a matron ; and it 
is to be noted that the bishops who took part 
in this condemnation were reproved by their col- 
leagues. Again, when the tribune Marceliinus was 
about to condemn certain Donatists who had shed 
Catholic blood, St. Augustine interceded for them; 
and when Honorius published a bloody law against 
Donatists and Jews, the same Saint wrote to the 
proconsul that if any death sentences were executed 
no ecclesiastic would ever again denounce heretics.! 
However, this holy Doctor afterward approved of 
the imperial rigor, J and in his "Ketractations" he 
wrote: "I composed two books against the Donat- 
ists, in which I said that I did not like to see 



Sess.4,c. 2. f Epist. 100. % Epist.93. 



The Truth About the Inquisition, 125 

secular force used to compel schismatics to com- 
munion ; for I had not yet discovered how impunity 
adds to the audacity of evil, and how quickness of 
punishment helps to ameliorate."* And elsewhere : 
"See what they do, and what they suffer. They 
kill souls, and suffer in their bodies; they produce 
eternal death, and complain of a temporal one. . . . 
If thou hast suffered affliction from the Catholic 
Church, oh, faction of Donatus ! thou hast suffered 
like Hagar from Sarah. Return to thy mistress ! " f 

The first modern law decreeing death as penalty 
for heresy was promulgated by the Emperor Fred- 
erick II., who, strange to say, was himself strongly 
suspected of infidelity, and is lauded by our con- 
temporary liberals as a model for anti-clericals. In 
1220, at the time of his coronation, this monarch 
declared that he "would use the sword received by 
him from God against the enemies of the faith;" 
and he orderd that all heretics in Lombardy should 
be burned, or deprived of their tongues. In 1231, 
publishing his "Constitutions for the Kingdom of 
Sicily," the same Frederick placed heresy "among 
other public crimes," and ranked it as more grievous 
than high-treason. 

It has been asserted that Pope Innocent III. 
founded the Inquistion ; that he received the idea 
from St. Dominic, and that this holy man was the 
first inquisitor. Innocent III. certainly appointed 



* B. ii, c. 5. f Tract on John, no. 15, 



126 The Truth About the Inquisition, 

Rainer and Guy as inquisitors of the faith during 
the Albigensian troubles ; but the Inquisition does 
not appear as a recognized tribunal before the pon- 
tificate of Gregory IX., and in the year 1229. As 
for St. Dominic, he died in 1221 5 and the Preaching 
Friars were not entrusted with the Inquisition until 
1233. Again, Theodoric of Apolda tells us that the 
Saint opposed the Albigensians with " words, exam- 
ple, and miracles ; " and, finally, these heretics then 
needed no Inquisition ; they were not occult, but de- 
claimed their errors in public. The origin of the 
Inquisition is found in the synod held at Toulouse 
in 1229, under the presidency of the Cardinal Ro- 
mano di Sant' Angelo, who had accompanied the 
reconciled Count Raymond VII. to his restored 
capital, in order to see that he fulfilled his promises. 
The Cardinal ordained that the bishops should ap- 
point, in each parish, a priest and two or three 
laymen of good standing, who would swear to 
' 'inquire for" heretics, and to make them known 
to the magistrates; the harborers of heretics were 
to be punished, and the houses in which they were 
voluntarily received were to be destroyed. The in- 
stitution of this tribunal was certainly an improve- 
ment on the previous system ; for thenceforth an 
inquiry was conducted by ecclesiastics, more learned 
and less harsh than the civil authorities. The in- 
quisitors admonished twice before they proceeded 
to arrests. Whoever abjured was pardoned; fre- 
quently moral punishment only was inflicted, whereas 
the secular tribunals would inevitably have imposed 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 127 

corporal chastisement. At the instance of St. Ray- 
mond of Pennafort, Pope Gregory IX. deprived the 
bishops of the right of inquisition, and conferred it 
on the friars, whose power was felt not only by 
every layman, but by all the clergy. When the 
inquisitor arrived in a town, he convoked the 
magistrates and caused them to swear to execute 
the decrees against heresy; in case of refusal, 
suspension from office was the lot of the recalcitrant ; 
and if the pople interfered, an interdict was launched 
against the place. The denunciations could not be 
anonymous, and a period was accorded to the 
accused within which to present himself at the 
tribunal; if he did not, he was cited. In the pre- 
paratory examination, the witnesses were heard be- 
fore a notary and two ecclesiastics ; if the accused 
appeared guilty, he was arrested, his residence was 
searched, and his property sequestrated. 

In the "Maestruzza" — a summary on the Sacra- 
ments and Commandments, written in 1338 for the 
use of the inquisitors, by the Dominican Barthol- 
omew da San Concordio — we read: " According to 
the civil law, soothsayers and witches should be 
burned; but according to the Church, they should 
be deprived of Communion, if their crime be notori- 
ous ; if it is secret, they should receive a penance of 
forty days (c. 42). The inquisitors can not inter- 
fere with soothsayers and sorcerers, unless heresy is 
plainly to be feared. Those who relapse into heresy 
after having abjured it, should be delivered to the 



128 The Truth About the Inquisition, 

secular power (c. 91)." The crime, therefore, was 
a civil one. The Church mitigated its punishment; 
for she absolved the penitent, and even tried to 
regain the relapse. The inquisitor had to declare 
that the accused was really a heretic, and therefore 
separated from the Church; from that moment he 
was a criminal before the State; and, as Cantu re- 
marks, the State did not execute the sentences of 
the Inquisition, but applied the penalties established 
by the law. 

In 1255 Pope Alexander III. established the 
Inquisition in France, with the consent, or rather at 
the request, of St. Louis ; and the office of grand- 
inquisitor was conferred on the Dominican pro- 
vincial and on the guardian of the Franciscans of 
Paris. According to the Bull of their institution, 
these inquisitors were independent of the bishops ; 
but so displeasing was the new jurisdiction to both 
the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, that the friars 
soon found themselves adorned with a useless title.* 
In Venice the Inquisition was introduced in 1289 ; 
but it should not be confounded with the Venetian 
Inquisition of State, a purely political institution, 
founded in 1454. The Inquisition in Venice was, 
from its very commencement, dependent upon the 



* Bergier, art. "Inquisition." — Bergier complacently con- 
gratulates his countrymen upon their freedom from the 
obnoxious tribunal, but he omits to state that the civil authori- 
ties of France furnished the world with spectacular "acts of 
faith" in quite modern times. Thus, on Feb. 17, 1525, in the 
Place Maubert at Paris ? the licentiate. Master William Joubert, 



Tlie Truth About the Inquisition. 129 

civil authorities; and in the sixteenth century it was 
prevented from undertaking any process whatever 
without the assistance of three senators. In English 
history this tribunal does not figure, although the 
English bishops, like all the other ordinaries of 
Christendom, frequently exercised inquisitorial 
power. In Germany it never obtained a foothold, 
and consequently heresy was left to the rigors of 
the imperial laws in those regions. 

The "Supreme Eoman Inquisition," or tribunal of 
the "Holy Office," was created on July 21, 1542, by 
a Bull, "Licet ab initio ," of Pope Paul III., and at 
the suggestion of Cardinal Caraffa, afterward Pope 
Paul IV. At Koine it was composed of Domin- 
icans; but in some countries, of Franciscans. 
Paul IV. decreed that the Inquisition should here- 
after depend, not from each bishop, but from this 
Congregation, which was authorized to judge defin- 
itively in all matters of heresy on both sides of the 
Alps. Sixtus V. reorganized the Holy Office, con- 
stituting twelve cardinals as its members, under the 
presidency of the Pontiff. It received faculties to 
inquire for heretics, or those suspected of heresy, 
and their abettors; to prosecute magicians, astrol- 
ogers, etc. ; also to prosecute all abusers of the 
Sacraments, all writers or possessors of prohibited 
books, all who abstained from confession or who ate 



after having made a public recantation in the Church of St. 
Genevieve, was given to the flames because of his former 
Lutheranism. 



130 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

forbidden food, polygamists, and many other offend- 
ers. That the methods of the Holy Office were 
only the customary ones of the time, and by no 
means secret, is evident from its Code. We have 
the ' 'Directory for Inquisitors," by the Dominican 
Eymeric (Rome, 1587); the "Duty of the Holy 
Inquisition, and its Mode of Proceeding in Causes 
of Faith" (Cremona, 1641), by Carena Cesare; 
and the "Compendium of the Art of Exorcism," 
by Mengius. The "Directory" was translated in 
1762, by Morellet, with intent to injure the 
Church; but the celebrated Malesherbes said to 
him: "You think that you have collected extra- 
ordinary facts, unheard of proceedings. Know, 
then, that this jurisprudence of Eymeric and of the 
Inquisition is very nearly our own."* From these 
documents we learn that the Holy Office allowed to 
each of the accused a "procurator," who had full 
liberty to communicate with his client, and to con- 
duct his defence; but we must admit that some- 
times the inquisitors did "not allow the notaries to 
give copies of the Acts of the Holy Office, unless 
to the accused; and then without the names of 
the witnesses, and without any particulars which 
might indicate the names to the accused. "t How- 



* Morellet says, in his "Memoirs," vol. i, 59: "I was con- 
founded at this assertion, but afterward I found that he was 
right." 

f "Short Account of the Manner of Prosecuting the Causes 
of the Holy Office, by the Kev. Vicars of the Holy Inquisition 
of Modena," cited by Cantu, in his "Heretics of Italy^" disc. 
32, note 63. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 131 

ever, this now reprehensible secrecy was com- 
mon to all the tribunals of those days; and the 
Protestant Jeremy Bentham admits that, in many 
cases, such secrecy may be absolutely necessary 
to public security.* The Inquisition was extended 
also to the Jews, not to persecute them, but to 
prevent them from propagating their errors, and 
from committing the alleged crimes against which 
the credulous then raged, just as to-day the cred- 
ulous fume on recalling the 6 'atrocities" of the 
Holy Office.t 

There is a great diversity of opinion, even among 
Catholic authors, as to the severity or mildness of 
the Roman Inquisition. Bergier says that "no 
instance is known of an execution (for heresy) at 
Rome." The late Archbishop Spalding, in an ad- 
mirable refutation of Prescott's allegations against 
the Spanish Inquisition, says that "though three 
hundred years have elapsed since the establishment 
of this court (the Holy Office), it would be difficult 
to point to an instance in which it ever pronounced 
sentence of capital punishment." De Maistre tells 
us that "it is impossible to ascertain precisely at 
what epoch the inquisitorial tribunal first pronounced 
a capital condemnation. It is fully sufficient for 
our purpose, however, to be convinced of an incon- 
testable fact : that it never could have acquired this 



* '-Works," vol. ii, p. 191; and passim. 

f The good Sadoleto, called the Italian Fenelon, in a letter 
to Cardinal Farnese, laments that the Jews were treated too 
kindly at Rome, and protected by Paul III. 



132 The Truth About the Inquisition, 

right until it became exclusively a royal or political 
institution ; and that every judgment which affects 
life in any degree was, is, and must ever be, most 
conscientiously discountenanced by the Church. . . . 
The Inquisition never condemns to death." But 
Cantu gives many instances of capital punishment 
awarded by the Roman Inquisition. Tiepolo, Vene- 
tian ambassador at Eome, describes an "Act of 
Faith" (auto dafe, atto di fede) performed in that 
city on September 27, 1567, when the famous Mgr. 
Carnesecchi, together with a friar of Belluno, having 
persisted in heresy, were decapitated and their 
bodies burned. Averardo Serristori, Florentine am- 
bassador, writes that the sentence of Carnesecchi 
was pronounced by the Cardinals of Trani and of 
Pisa, Paceco and Gambura.* Cantu cites another 
dispatch of Tiepolo, describing an Act of May 28, 
1569, when, in presence of twenty-two cardinals, 
four impenitents were given to the flames. In a 
dispatch of February 24, 1585, the Venetian resident 
at Eome speaks of a "publication" of seventeen 
inquisiti by the Holy Office in presence of many 



* "Embassy of Averardo Serristori, ambassador of Cosimo 
I. to Charles V. and at the Court of Eome," 1537-1568; Flor- 
ence, 1853 — Carnesecchi had been excommunicated as con- 
tumacious by Paul IV.; under Pius IV. he defended himself 
so well that he was absolved and acknowledged as a good 
Catholic. But he soon became notorious as a teacher of the 
Reformed doctrines, and Pius V. obtained his extradition from 
the Grand-Duke Cosimo I., whose subject he was. His pro- 
cess is very interesting, as furnishing many particulars con- 
cerning Cardinal Pole, Victoria Colonna, and others of the 
same school. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 133 

cardinals ; three of the accused were condemned to 
the stake. In fine, although many letters of the 
time narrate alleged atrocities of the Holy Office 
which are merely founded on the exaggerations of 
the mob,* there seems to be no doubt that the 
Roman tribunal condemned many heretics to death. 
It is certain, however, that mildness was the general 
characteristic of the Holy Office. Cousin, in his 
"Memoire on Vanini," shows that the friends of this 
wretched hypocrite f tried to have his case trans- 
ferred to the Roman Inquisition, feeling that thus 
he would escape capital punishment. And history 
furnishes many instances of criminals feigning guilt 
of heresy, sorcery, or similar crimes, in order to 
pass under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The 
case of Campanella is celebrated. His clerical com- 
rades in the Calabrian conspiracy against the Spanish 
crown escaped death by pleading guilty of heresy, 
and being therefore consigned to the Inquisition ; 
while he himself, after twenty-seven years of con- 
finement, was saved by Pope Urban VIII. having 
insisted on his trial on the charge of sorcery. J 

The word "inquisition," as met in history, has 
three very different significations. It may mean 



* De Thou writes that during the reign of Sixtus V. Mureto 
told him : "Whenever I awake I dread lest I shall hear that 
such a one is no more." The assertion is false; for Mureto 
died in 1585, shortly after the election of Sixtus V., and De 
Thou was then residing in France. 

f Leibnitz deemed him insane. 

X The great mathematician was acquitted; he was enrolled 
in the Papal household, and an annual pension assigned him. 



134 The Truth About the Inquisition, 

either a religious, apolitical, or a mixed tribunal. 
All bishops, as inquirers into the purity of faith 
in their respective dioceses, exercise a religious in- 
quisition. The political inquisition can meet with 
no opposition, unless from those who decry every 
species of government, even such as obtains among 
savages; for all governments employ some sort of 
police. But when there is question of the mixed 
inquisition, such as Eome sanctioned from the begin- 
ning of the 13th century, our ears are deafened with 
clamor. When the Inquisition is condemned by a 
Catholic, contending that the Gospel of love should 
have prevented violent proceedings, the idea may 
not be utterly unreasonable; but we must remember 
that intolerance seems to be inseparable from pro- 
found belief. In the Middle Age faith was the 
very life of society, the necessary and only tie which 
constituted it; it is not strange, therefore, that the 
guardians of society proceeded to the last extremity 
against the violators of the faith. Such is the 
explanation which we tender to the Catholic who 
condemns the Inquisition. But when a Protestant 
attacks this tribunal, he betrays either ignorance 
and misplaced complacency in his religious prede- 
cessors, or a desire to prescribe one code of morality 
for his own and another for the Catholic Church. 



But the Spanish residents having mobbed him several times, 
he repaired to France, where he was received with open arms 
by Cardinal Richelieu, and made a counsellor of state. He 
became president of the newly founded Royal Academy of 
France. 

J 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 135 

Luther, according to his enthusiastic apologist, 
Seckendorf, would have imprisoned, banished, and 
despoiled all the Jews, and would even have de- 
prived them of the Bible. Calvin banished the 
Carmelite apostate, Bolsec, because this unfortunate 
proved that the heresiarch's doctrines made God the 
author of sin ; and it was not Calvin's fault that the 
daring man was not capitally punished as a Pelagian. 
The death of Servetus at the stake; the condem- 
nation of Gentile to death, which he avoided for a 
time by recantation; the banishment of Ochino; 
the persecutions of Biandrata; and Calvin's own 
book on the errors of Servetus, in which, according 
to the title-page, "it is taught that heretics are to 
be coerced by the sword," — all these facts should 
cause the Protestant polemic to be less bitter in his 
diatribes against the Inquisition.* The "gentle" 
Melancthon hoped that some brave man would 
merit glory by assassinating Henry VIII. , and he 
himself approved the execution of Servetus: "The 
magistracy of the republic of Geneva gave, by put- 
ting Servetus out of the way, a pious and memorable 



* The reforming princes of Germany and Sweden were foes 
to toleration ; they had arrogated to themselves all power in 
religious matters, and would have but one religion in their 
dominions. Their motto was Ejus religio cujus regio. Calvin, 
most stubborn of foes to a separation of Church and state, in- 
voked against dissenters the penalty of death, because, as he 
asserted, no one can refuse to acknowledge the authority of 
princes over the Church .without injury to the governments 
established by God. Those Protestants who would claim 
Savonarola as one of the precursors of the Lutheran revolt 
should know that the friar was no friend to toleration. Dis- 



136 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

example to all posterity."* Beza wrote a book in 
defence of the thesis that "liberty of conscience is 
a doctrine of the devil;" and article 36 of the 
"Helvetic Confession" reads: "Let the magistrates 
draw the sword against all blasphemers, and coerce 
the heretics."! But we do not wish, in this matter, 
to reprove Protestants or to excuse Catholics ; we 
rather say with Cantu: "We seek and explain the 
truth ; and, reflecting that persecution was peculiar 
to that time, as toleration is said to be peculiar to 
ours, and that the fury of the persecutors attests 
their sincerity, we lament the facts, and recur to 
that principle which is infallible. The Council of 
Trent speaks not of Inquisition or of stakes, though 
it pronounces anathema on the unbeliever; but 
whenever humanity carries out a great design, it 
becomes prodigal of blood." 



II. 

We now approach the subject of the Spanish 
Inquisition, a tribunal which is often, and wrongly, 
confounded with the Eoman, and about which, 
reprehensible though it was, there are probably as 

puting against astrologists, he exclaimed: "Oh, ye foolish 
and insensate astrologists ! the only way to argue with you is 
the use of fire." ("Tract against Astrologers," c. 3.) 

* "On Servetus," 1555. — "Corpus Keform," viii, 523; ix, 
133. 

t At this day, says Cantu, they show at Dresden the axe 
which the Lutherans used against dissenters, and on it is in- 
scribed: „$uf bttfj, (Satuurift!" 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 137 

many popular misconceptions as upon any matter 
of history. The misstatements of all modern en- 
emies of the Church concerning this tribunal are 
traceable either to Mme. d'Aunoy's Hispanophobic 
book, or to Philip Limborch, or to John Anthony 
Llorente. The falsehoods of Mme. d'Aunoy and 
of Limborch were admirably refuted by De Vayrac,* 
and his work is one of the most valuable ever writ- 
ten on the subject. Hefele's book on "Cardinal 
Ximenes," etc., can not be too warmly recom- 
mended to the student. Cantu is by no means 
sparing of the Spanish tribunal ; but the thoroughly 
Catholic tone of his philosophical reflections, and 
his evident impartiality, render an attentive study 
of his views on this subject more satisfactory, at 
least to our mind, than that of any other author. 

After 780 years of combat, the Spaniards had 
saved their Catholicism and nationality — with them 
the two were thoroughly identified — from the 
Moors. At first the free exercise of their religion 
was allowed to the conquered ; but after they had 
repeatedly revolted, and had made many attempts to 
procure another Mohammedan invasion from Africa, 
the Spanish sovereigns ordered, in 1501, that all 
the Moors should leave Castile and Granada, sav- 
ing those who would embrace Christianity. Most 
of the Moors received baptism, but many secretly 
apostatized, while others adulterated their Christian 



"Present State of Spain," Amsterdam, 1719. 



IBB The Truth About the Inquisition. 

rites with Mohammedan practices. At this time the 
Spanish government, which for more than a century 
had resisted the popular demands for the banish- 
ment of the Jews, resolved to acquiesce, alleging 
as a reason a league of all the foes of Christianity 
against the freedom of Spain. All good Spaniards 
yearned for a means of cementing the religious and 
political unity of the nation ; and that means seemed 
to be offered by the Inquisition, which had been in- 
troduced into Spain in 1480 in the following man- 
ner : The island of Sicily having been added to the 
Spanish dominions in 1479, the Sicilian inquisitor, 
De Barbaris, asked Ferdinand and Isabella for a 
confirmation of the right, granted by Frederick II. 
to the Inquisition, to appropriate a third of all the 
property confiscated from heretics. While urging 
his demand, De Barbaris advised the sovereigns to 
introduce the Inquisition into Spain, as a measure 
against the Moorish and Jewish apostates, who, 
even at this time, long before the decree of banish- 
ment, were numerous, and about whom every in- 
famy was narrated. Isabella opposed the project 
until she was persuaded that it would further the 
salvation of souls ; Ferdinand saw in it a means to 
replenish his treasury, and immediately consented. ' 
When Pope Sixtus IV. heard of Ferdinand's action, " 
he was so displeased that he placed the Spanish . 
ambassador under arrest ; in retaliation, Ferdinand 
arrested the papal envoy, and recalled all his sub- 
jects from the Eoman States. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 139 

The Pontiff afterward yielded, and allowed the 
Inquisition to be introduced into Castile and Ara- 
gon (1480) ; later on, however, touched by the com- 
plaints that reached him concerning the rigor of the 
tribunal, he declared that the Bull of institution was 
surreptitious. He admonished the inquisitors, order- 
ing them to proceed only in accord with the bishops, 
and not to extend their inquiries into the other prov- 
inces; he also instituted a papal judge to hear all 
appeals from the Spanish tribunal, and he quashed 
many of its indictments. Ferdinand and Isabella, 
as well as their successor, Charles V., constantly en- 
deavored to elude these provisions of the Holy See; 
but even Llorente admits that the papal appellate 
judges often restored property and civil rights to 
those whom the Inquisition had condemned; and 
that they often compelled the inquisitor, to absolve 
the accused privately, in order to save them from 
legal punishment and public ignominy. 

The Dominican friar Thomas de Torquemada,* of 
Valladolid, was chosen to preside over the Supreme 
or Royal Council of the Inquisition of Castile and 
Aragon, the members of which had a deliberative 
voice in all matters of civil law, and a consultative 
one in affairs of canon law. Seville, Cordova, Jaen, 
and Toledo had dependent tribunals; and the in- 
quisitors, with two royal assessors, published a code 



* Not to be confounded with his uncle, the great theologian, 
John, Cardinal Torquemada, who died in 1468. 



140 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

of procedure.* From this time the cloak of re- 
ligion covered many acts of tyranny in Spain. The 
Eoman Pontiffs frequently interfered ; indeed as far 
back as the pontificate of Nicholas V. (1447-55) all 
distinction between new and old Christians had 
been condemned. Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII., and 
Leo X. received appeals from the decisions of 
the inquisitors, and reminded them of the prodigal 
son. Julius II. and Leo X. dispensed many from 
the obligation of wearing the sambenito, or peni- 
tential sack, which the tribunal imposed on all the 
reconciled; and these Pontiffs, in several cases, 
ordered the signs of reprobation to be removed 
from the tombs of the condemned. Leo X., in 



* The first three articles treated of the composition of the 
tribunal in cities; the publication of censures against heretics 
and apostates, who did not voluntarily denounce themselves; 
and prescribed a further term of grace by which confiscation 
might be avoided. IV. Voluntary confessions, made within 
the term of grace, were to be written in answer to questions of 
the inquisitors. V. Absolution could not be given iu secret, 
unless the crime was secret.. VI. A reconciled person was de- 
prived of every office of honor, and could not use gold, silver, 
pearls, silk, or fine wool. VII. Pecuniary penances were 
given to those who voluntarily confessed. VIII. A voluntary 
penitent, presenting himself after the term of grace, could not 
be exempted from the confiscation incurred on the day of his 
apostasy or heresy. IX. Only a light penance was given to 
voluntary penitents who were not yet 20 years of age. X. The 
time of a penitent's first fall was to be particularized, that it 
might be ascertained what proportion of his goods should be 
confiscated. XI. If a heretic, confined by the Inquisition, 
should demand absolution, being touched by sincere repent- 
ance, it was to be granted; but his penance should be impris- 
onment for life. XII. The inquisitors were allowed to use tor- 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 141 

spite of Charles V., excommunicated the inquisitor 
of Toledo in 1519. Paul III. encouraged the 
Neapolitans to resist Charles V. when he wished 
to introduce the tribunal among them ; and when 
the learned Vives was condemned as suspected of 
Lutheranism, the same Pontiff declared him in- 
nocent. Mureto, the great Latinist whom the 
Spanish Inquisition would have sent to the stake, 
was called to Rome, and made a professor in the 
University. 

Diego Deza, successor to Torquemada, persuaded 
the Spanish sovereigns to establish the tribunal also 



ture in the case of a reconciled person whose confession they 
deemed imperfect, and whose penitence they deemed it neces- 
sary to stimulate. XIII. Torture was also permitted in the case 
of one who had boasted of having concealed crimes in his con- 
fession. XIV. A convicted person, persisting in a denial of 
guilt, was to be condemned as impenitent. XY. If a per- 
son under torture confessed, and afterward confirmed his 
avowal, he was to be condemned as one convicted; if he re- 
tracted, he was to be again interrogated. XVI. It was pro- 
hibited to furnish the accused an entire copy of the testimony 
against him. XVII. The witnesses were to be questioned 
by the inquisitors themselves. XVIII. One or two inquisi- 
tors were to be present at every examination. XIX. An accused 
who did not obey a formal citation was to be condemned as a 
convicted heretic. XX. If his conduct, while living, showed 
that any person, now dead, was a heretic, he was to be con- 
demned as such ; his body, if in consecrated ground, was to be 
disinterred, and his property confiscated. XXI. The inquisi- 
tors were ordered to exercise their powers over the vassals of 
the lords, and to censure the latter if they resisted. XXII. A 
portion of all confiscated property was to be given, as alms, 
to the heirs of the condemned. The remaining six articles re- 
garded the conduct of the inquisitors among themselves and 
toward their subordinates. 



142 The Truth About the Inquisition, 

in Granada, but Isabella insisted that it should be 
confined to Cordova ; afterward, following the advice 
of Ximenes, the sovereigns bought and emancipated 
all Moorish slaves who would become Christians, 
and thus were obtained fifty thousand "new Chris- 
tians." Under Charles V. the Inquisition increased 
in activity, but under Philip II. it attained its great- 
est development. When dying, Charles Y. had 
earnestly impressed upon the mind of his heir the 
necessity of preserving the tribunal ; and so well did 
Philip fulfill his father's desire that the power of the 
Inquisition became so great as to overshadow, in 
some respects, that of Rome. This antagonism is 
illustrated by the celebrated process of Carranza. 
Carranza was a Dominican, and had greatly distin- 
guished himself in the Council of Trent. His merit 
caused him to be promoted to the see of Toledo in 
1557 ; but his genius drew upon him the jealousy of 
many, and he was accused of heresy. For this 
reason Charles Y. received him rather coldly when 
he approached the monarch's death-bed to adminis- 
ter the last Sacraments. The accusers of Carranza 
insisted that after the death of the Emperor the 
Archbishop lifted a crucifix and exclaimed : ' 'Behold 
Him who has saved us all ! Everything is forgiven 
through his merits; there is no longer any sin." 
For such expressions, as though he excluded the co- 
operation of man in the work of justification, he was 
arrested on August 22, 1559, and confined in the 
inquisitorial prison of Yalladolid. The Holy Office 
had already placed .on the Index his "Comments on 
the Christian Catechism," although the book was 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 143 

dedicated to Philip II., and had been approved by a 
commission of the Council of Trent. Pius IV., rig- 
orous though he was, disapproved of the conduct of 
the Inquisition, and called the casetoEome. Philip, 
however, declared that the first prelate of Spain 
should be tried only in Spain, and the Pontiff com- 
promised by sending a legate and two other judges 
to conduct the examination. But the inquisitors con- 
trived to prolong the investigation until St. Pius V. 
ascended the papal throne. This Pontiff repeat- 
edly complained to Philip that he was not kept 
informed of the progress of the cause ; and finally, 
by threatening the monarch with excommunication, 
succeeded in having Carranza sent to Eome. This 
was in May, 1567, after nearly eight years of im- 
prisonment under the Spanish inquisitors.* 



* Carranza was honorably lodged in Castel San Angelo. 
Four cardinals, four bishops, and twelve theological doctors 
were deputed for his trial. The Pope plainly manifested his 
indignation at the conduct of the Inquisition; he declared that 
far from prohibiting the "Comments" of the Archbishop, he 
was much inclined to approve of the work by a motu-proprio . 
But it appears certain that Carranza had at least rendered him- 
self liable to suspicion. In 1539 he had assisted, as "qualifica- 
tor" of the Inquisition, at a general chapter of the Dominican 
Order at Rome, and had become very intimate with Flaminius 
and other suspects, and even with the noted heretic, Carnesec- 
chi. The process at Rome lasted three years ; three more were 
spent in the law's delays, and only in 1576 was definitive sen- 
tence pronounced by Gregory XIII. On his knees before the 
Pope, Carranza made an abjuration of all heretical doctrine, 
and withdrew fourteen "evil-sounding" propositions taken 
from his writings. He was suspended from episcopal func- 
tions, and ordered to reside in a house of his Order at Orvieto 
for five years, after having visited the seven basilicas of Rome. 
However, he died a few days afterward, and the Pope gave 
him a splendid funeral. 



144 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

Since the work of Llorente is generally adduced 
as an authority in all matters concerning the Spanish 
Inquisition, it is well to give some account of this 
famous writer. Born of a noble family of Aragon 
in 1756, he entered the priesthood in 1779, became 
vicar-general of the diocese of Calahorrain 1782, and 
was appointed secretary-general of the Inquisition 
at Madrid in 1789. From his early manhood he 
was a Freemason, and, of course, a "Liberal," 
which term was then—as even now it sometimes is— 
synonymous with anti-Catholic. When Napoleon 
commenced his experiment of planting his own 
dynasty on the throne of Spain, Llorente became an 
enthusiastic Afrancesado, as all patriotic Spaniards 
styled the adherents of the Josephine administra- 
tion. It has always been a favorite trick with usurpers 
to ransack the archives of dispossessed princes, and 
to publish to the world whatever might turn, or might 
be twisted, to the discredit of the latter. In accord- 
ance with this idea, the intruding Joseph Bonaparte 
in 1809 commissioned Llorente, the ex-secretary (he 
had been dismissed for sundry irregularities) to show 
up the secrets of the Inquisition, that the Spaniards 
might learn to love the tyranny-crushing rule of a 
foreigner. When the venal Afrancesado'' 's work 
appeared, it was found to be an insult to Rome, to 
Spain, and to the Spanish Church. Hef ele proffers 
the following judgment on Llorente: "A promi- 
nent feature in his writings is their great bitterness 
toward the Church, and this sentiment impels him 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 145 

to many inexact and even false assertions. The 
shallowness and inaccuracy of Llo rente, as a his- 
torian, are no less evident than his hatred of the 
Church. In his 'Portraits' he informs us that Paul 
of Samosata embraced the heresy of Sabellius : an 
assertion the absurdity of which brings a smile to 
the face of the veriest tyro in ecclesiastical history. 
He also tells us that St. Justin (d. 167) wrote his 
works before the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch 
(d. 107 or 116); that Apollonius of Tyana Was a 
heretic, etc. No less full of errors is his 'History 
of the Inquisition . ' However, this work is valuable, 
inasmuch as it furnishes us with numerous extracts 
of original documents of the Inquisition ; and they 
enable us to form, concerning the Spanish tribunal, 
a more exact judgment than one could have formed 
before Llorente wrote." The Protestant Eanke 
says that Llorente "gave us a famous book on this 
subject; and if I may presume to say anything that 
contravenes the opinion of such a predecessor, let 
my excuse be that this well-informed author wrote 
in the interest of the Afrancesados of the Josephine 
administration. In that interest . . . he looks on 
the Inquisition as a usurpation of the spiritual over 
the secular authority. Nevertheless, if I am not 
altogether in error, it appears, even from his own 
facts, that the Inquisition toas a royal court of judi- 
cature, although armed with ecclesiastical weapons." 
Eelying implicitly on the authority of the salaried 
sycophant of Joseph Bonaparte, many later writers 



146 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

regard the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition 
as due to the influence of the court of Rome. They 
assert that the severities of this tribunal were but 
consequences of Catholic intolerance and of the 
Roman mania for persecution ; they depict the In- 
quisition in such lurid colors as to lead the reader 
to believe it the monster, without a rival in cruelty, 
among all tribunals, ancient or modern, civilized or 
barbarous, — Christian, Mussulman, or pagan. Llo- 
rente is a great favorite with Prescott ; consequently 
when the latter treats of the Inquisition, many of 
his facts are miscolored, and not a few perverted. 
Now, nothing is more certain than that the Spanish 
tribunal was mainly a political institution. The 
king appointed the grand-inquisitor; he confirmed 
the nomination of the assessors, two of whom were 
always taken from the supreme council of Castile ; 
the tribunal depended from the sovereign, who thus 
became master of the lives and property of his sub- 
jects;* the king reserved to himself a share of the 
funds of the Inquisition, and often the inquisitors 
had not enough for their expenses. The Protestant 
Schrock, in his "Universal History," admits that 
this tribunal was secular, and wonders that the 



* Anthony Perez, pursued for his life by Philip II., and es- 
caping to France, published some "Relations," in which he 
tells how the papal nuncio disapproved of this notion of the 
royal power, and adds: "While I was at Madrid a certain 
party, whom I need not name, preaching before the Catholic 
King, asserted that 'kings have absolute power over the per- 
sons and goods of their subjects.' This proposition was con- 
demned by the Inquisition; and the preacher was compelled, 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 147 

Pontiff allowed it to become such. But let us hear 
Ranke on this matter: "In the first place, the in- 
quisitors were royal officers. The kings appointed 
and dismissed them; among the various councils at 
their court the kings had likewise one of the Inqui- 
sition ; the courts of the Inquisition, like other mag- 
istracies, were subject to royal visitation ; the same 
men who sat in the supreme Court of Castile were 
often accessories of the Inquisition. To no purpose 
did Ximenes scruple to admit into the council of 
the Inquisition a layman nominated by Ferdinand 
the Catholic. 'Do you not know,' said the king, 
'that if the tribunal possesses jurisdiction, it derives 
it from the king?' ... In the second place, all 
the profit of the confiscations by this court accrued to 
the king. ... It was even believed and asserted 
from the beginning that the kings had been moved 
to establish this tribunal more by a hankering after 
the wealth it confiscated than by motives of piety. 
. . . Segni says that the Inquisition was in- 
vented to rob the wealthy of their property, and the 
powerful of their influence.* As Charles V. knew 



in the same place, and with all the juridical formalities, to 
retract it. He did so in the same pulpit, adding, 'Kings pos- 
sess over their subjects only that authority which is accorded 
them by divine and human law, and not any derived from 
their own absolute will.' The delinquent was made to repeat 
these words by order of Master Fernan del Castillo, consultor 
of the Holy Office." 

* Ranke might have stated that the Florentine historian 
adds: "It was based on the omnipotence of the king, and it 
worked everything to the profit of the royal power, to the 
detriment of the spiritual. In its first idea and in its object 



148 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

no other means of bringing certain punishment on 
the bishops who had taken part in the insurrection 
of the Communidades,* he chose to have them 
judged by the Inquisition. . . . Under Philip it 
interfered in matters of trade and of the arts, of 
customs and marine. How much further could it 
go, when it pronounced it heresy to sell horses or 
munitions to France? ... In spirit, and above all 
in tendency, it was a political institution. The 
Pope had an interest in thwarting it, and he did so 
as often as he could, "f 

In 1812 the Spanish Cortes, having assembled to 
arrange a new constitution for the kingdom, ap- 
pointed a committee to report on the Inquisition. 
This document shows that its authors were no 
friends of the tribunal, but it asserts that the 
Inquisition "was an institution demanded and 
established by the Spanish monarchs in difficult 
circumstances;" and that, furthermore, the tribunal 
"could decree nothing without the consent of the 
king." Nay, according to the committee, "the 
Inquisition is a royal authority, the inquisitor is a 
royal agent, and all his ordinances are null and 
void unless they have the royal sanction. The 



it is a political institution. It is the interest of the Pope to 
put obstacles in its way, and he does so whenever he can; but 
it is the interest of the king to maintain it in continual pro- 
gress." 

* Alluding to the struggle of the Communes for their 
fueros, or privileges, a struggle in which the clergy sided with 
the people. 

f Loc. cit, 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 149 

king's power suspends and revokes at will every 
member of the tribunal ; and the very moment royal 
authority would disappear, the tribunal would ac- 
company it." The Calvinist Limborch, who is, 
after Llorente, the most bitter of all polemics who 
have written on the Inquisition, narrates a fact 
which also proves that the Spanish tribunal was a 
local political institution. When Philip II. sought 
to establish it in Milan, the people revolted, declar- 
ing that "in a Christian city it would be tyranny 
to establish a form of Inquisition designed for Moors 
and Jews." The conduct of the Neapolitans, ever 
averse to the introduction of the Spanish Inquisi- 
tion, though they willingly received the Koman, as 
well as the ordinary Inquisition of their own bishops, 
also proves that the Spanish tribunal was regarded 
as a royal one. Many attempts, met by insurrection 
and bloodshed, had been made by the viceroys of 
Charles V\ and Philip II. to introduce it; and in 
1564, when several of the friends of Victoria Colonna 
and Julia Gonzaga* had been cited by the archiepis- 
copal vicar, and when two others had been beheaded, 
the citizens demanded of the viceroy, the Duke of 
Alcala, whether he intended to force the obnoxious 
tribunal upon them. A negative answer reassured 



* The Princess Victoria Colonna, born 1490, at Marino, a 
fief of her family, was one of the most distinguished women 
of her day. Loved, after the manner of Petrarch, by Michael 
Angelo, and intimate with Pole, Morone, Flaminio, and other 
great spirits of the time, she exercised more influence than 
any other one person of her circle. Her correspondence, 



150 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

them ; and a few years afterward the citizens sent 
deputies, "with orders to thank the illustrious 
Archbishop for his many demonstrations against 
heretics and Jews, and to request him to inform his 
Holiness that the entire city is w T ell pleased with 
the chastisement and extirpation of such persons 
by the hand of our own ordinary, as is quite proper; 
this we have always prayed for: that the canons 
should be observed, and that there should be no 
interference of a secular court." 



III. 

We must now say a few words in conclusion upon 
the severity of the Spanish Inquisition. Many of 
the apologists of this tribunal point to the words 
"Mercy and Justice" emblazoned on its banner, 
and insist on the fact that the consignment of a cul- 
prit to the secular arm was always accompanied by 
a strong recommendation to mercy. There is no 
doubt that mercy was generally shown to the repent- 
ant, and that in their case the auto da fe consisted 
in the burning of the candles which they held in 
their hands. But we lay no stress on the recommen- 
dation to mercy ; we agree with those who regard 






redolent of mysticism, is orthodox; but she did not escape the 
suspicion of heresy. Julia Gonzaga, Countess of Fonda, 
another famous princess of the day, had to hear the same 
accusation; but, as Pompeo Litta says ("Celebrated Italian 
Families," no. 33), this was common to all the learned per- 
sonages who then contended for a reform of ecclesiastical 
discipline. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 151 

this phrase as a mere form. The inquisitors well 
knew that their condemnation and their abandon- 
ment of the accused to the civil power was equiva- 
lent to a sentence of death ; that all hope of mercy 
rested with themselves alone. We prefer to con- 
fine ourselves to an inquiry into the truth of the 
popular estimate of the cruelties of the tribunal. 

The reader may rest assured that in this exhibi- 
tion, with which popular prejudice has long been 
regaled, there is nothing behind the curtain that 
might further satisfy the morbid ; everything that 
could contribute to render the scene more impressive 
has been artistically presented. Outside of Spain, 
few authors, Catholic or Protestant, have attempted 
to explain, still fewer to defend, the Spanish Inquisi- 
tion. In France, for a long time after the days of 
Philip II., it was the fashion to ridicule everything 
pertaining to Spain. In England, commercial rivalry 
and religious rancor, aided by a consciousness of 
England's own superior cruelty in religious persecu- 
tion, caused those writers on whom moderns have 
relied for information to misrepresent everything 
emanating from his Catholic Majesty. In Germany, 
until very recent times, the calumnies of the first 
"reformers" had so firm a hold on the popular and 
even on the cultivated mind, that no horror narrated 
of a Catholic people or of a Catholic ruler appeared 
incredible. But even Voltaire, of course an implac- 
able foe of the Inquisition, admits that "without 
doubt this justly detested tribunal has been charged 
with horrible excesses that it did not always commit ; 



152 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

it is foolish to clamor against the Inquisition because 
of doubtful facts, and still more foolish to search 
for lies with which to render it hateful."* And 
hearken to the opinion of Bourgoing, Minister of 
the first French Eepublic to Spain, and, from the 
very nature of his associations, an opponent of the 
Inquisition: "I publicly avow, in order to pay 
homage to truth, that the Inquisition might be 
cited, in our days, as a model of equity. "f Even 
Limborch admits that during a very long period 
only fifteen men and four women were executed, 
and most of these for treason, witchcraft, sacrilege, 
or other crimes different from heresy. t Llorente 
cites an auto da fe of 1486 at Toledo, when seven 
hundred and fifty were condemned, but not one to 
capital punishment ; another of nine hundred, also 
without a death; another where three thousand 
three hundred were condemned, but only twenty- 
seven suffered death. And we must remember that, 
beside heresy, the Inquisition had jurisdiction over 
sins against, nature, solicitation in tribunate, blas- 
phemy, robbery of churches, and even over the 
furnishing of contraband goods to the enemy. 

Let us examine the mode of procedure adopted 
and constantly followed by the Spanish Inquisition. 
According to Simancas,§ one of the first lawyers 
of the sixteenth century, no one was arrested until 

* In the French/'Dictionary of Sciences." 
t "A Voyage in Spain," by M. Bourgoing, reviewed in the 
"Journal of the Empire," Sep. 17, 1805. 
% Spalding, loc. cit. 
§ "Catholic Institutions against Heresy," 1552. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 153 

accused by three different witnesses, each of whom 
swore that he was not acting in collusion with any 
other, and that he was not actuated by malice.* So 
careful was the tribunal to exclude malice, that both 
witnesses and inquisitors were subject to excom- 
munication if they yielded to it. When the accused 
appeared, if he could disprove the charges, he was 
released; if he could not disprove them, but avowed 
his repentance, he was, even then, released. Even 
if he relapsed, and being again committed, repented, 
he was again released. f Only on the third convic- 
tion, and by three different sets of witnesses, each 
generally consisting of three (sometimes only two 
were required), the accused was finally consigned 
to the civil court for judgment. Much fault has 
been found with the Inquisition for sometimes ad- 
mitting the evidence of disreputable persons, such 
as courtesans, etc. ; but all tribunals do so to this 
day ; and Simancas says that such testimony was 
received only "for what it was worth," and that, to 
condemn the accused, evidence "clearer than light" 
was required. % 

So far, we think, the reader will find no fault 
with the proceedings of the Inquisition, unless he 
is violently affected by the fact of the crime being 
a religious one, and therefore — as he may have been 
accustomed to think — one beyond the cognizance 
of a human tribunal. Let him remember, however, 



* Ibi. tit. xliv. 

f Limborch admits these two consecutive pardons. 

X Loc. cit., tit. li. 



154 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

that positive law is conventional; that "to-day dif- 
ferent crimes are punished, but this proves only 
that social interests are not always the same ; those 
of to-day have the advantage of being actual, while 
those of the olden time have the disadvantage of 
having passed away."* But the reader will probably 
condemn the practice of torturing the convicted who 
would not confess their guilt. The more enlightened 
jurisprudence of our day recognizes the foolishness, 
as well as the cruelty, of such practice; but at the 
time of the Inquisition the custom of applying the 
"question"! at the trial of imputed criminals was 
universal, and had been recognized from the days 
of Justinian. Men seem not to have perceived 
its absurdity and inhumanity until a very modern 
period; most of the European States continued its 
use until the end of the last century. But there 
are two points concerning the use of torture by 
the Spanish Inquisition which are too frequently 
ignored. Torture was applied by the civil, not by the 
ecclesiastical court; and if , as we learn from Art. 
18 of the code established by Torquemada, one or 
two ecclesiastics were always present at the ques- 
tion, they were there merely to witness the avowals, 
and not — as popular fancy has pictured them — to 
gloat over the agonies of their victims. Again, a 



* Cantu, "Heretics of Italy," disc. 5. 

t There were two kinds of "question," the ordinary and 
extraordinary; the former being a mild use of the instru- 
ments employed "to elicit the truth," while the latter involved 
the utmost extreme of torment. 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 155 

confession extorted by torture was of no avail to 
the prosecution, unless it was voluntarily confirmed 
three days afterward. 

Concerning the number of the victims, whether 
by death or by exile, of the Spanish Inquisition, 
Balmes says that he defies England or France — the 
two nations who now claim to be at the head of 
civilization — to show, and to compare with the 
Spanish, their statistics on the subject of religious 
persecution : "We do not fear the parallel." The 
Continuator of Fleury gives us a discourse of the 
celebrated Chancellor de l'Hopital, who was strongly 
suspected of Calvinism, which indicates that in the 
sixteenth century the dreaded tribunal was not 
painted in colors so sombre as it wears at present. 
At the Colloquy of Poissy there was a debate on 
the propriety of establishing the Inquisition in 
France ; and the Chancellor avowed that he would 
vote for it, "had not the evil of religious dissen- 
sion already taken so deep a root in his country, 
and were it likely that France would secure that 
benefit of unity of faith which Philip had secured 
for Spain at the cost (during his reign) of forty- 
eight capital executions." Llorente contends that, 
during its career of three hundred and thirty years, 
the Spanish tribunal put more than thirty thousand 
persons to death; but when we analyze his details, 
we find that his figures are not to be trusted. 
Take, for instance, the assertion that during the 
first year of its existence (1481) the sole tribunal 
of Seville burned two thousand, all of whom, he 



156 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

says, belonged to the dioceses of Seville and Cadiz. 
In support of this charge he cites Mariana; but a 
consultation of that historian will reveal that the 
number of two thousand includes all the persons 
executed under Torquemada, and throughout his 
entire jurisdiction — that is, in the whole of Castile 
and Leon during his fifteen years of inquisitorship. 
After narrating how Torquemada founded inquisi- 
torial tribunals in Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and 
Catalonia, Pulgar, a contemporary historian, justi- 
fies the remarks of Mariana: "These tribunals 
summoned all heretics to present themselves ; and 
fifteen thousand having obeyed, they were recon- 
ciled to the Church by penance. As for those 
who waited for prosecution, the convicted were 
consigned to the secular authority, and about two 
thousand of them were burned at different times in 
various districts." 

Llorente himself shows, in another passage, that 
his figures concerning the victims of the year 1481 
are falsified ; for there he states that in that very 
year the new tribunal executed two hundred and 
ninety-eight persons. He perceived the contradic- 
tion, and tried to escape by remarking that seven- 
teen hundred and two other victims belonged to 
other places than Seville — "to the surrounding 
districts and the diocese of Cadiz." But the for- 
getful historian had already told us, and rightly, 
that before 1483 there was but one inquisitorial 
tribunal in all Andalusia, and that it was at Seville, 
whither the accused were sent from all parts. So 



The Truth About the Inquisition. 157 

much for Llorente's statistics of the first year of 
the Spanish Inquisition, and nearly all his other 
calculations are made with similar disregard for 
truth. Listen to the following argument: "When 
the number of tribunals was increased from three 
to eleven, the number of executions must have 
increased in the same proportion;" and then he 
builds up his figures. Must we suppose that eleven 
tribunals necessarily have eleven times the number 
of capital sentences hitherto pronounced by one? 

Again, the bad faith of Llorente is plain when he 
says that his thirty thousand victims were all here- 
tics, — "unfortunates, who had committed, perhaps, 
no other crime than that of better interpreting the 
Bible, and of having a faith more enlightened than 
that of their judges." According to his own 
admission, the Spanish tribunal took cognizance of 
many crimes besides heresy : of sins against nature ; 
of ecclesiastical and monastic immoralities ; of blas- 
phemy, usury, and sacrilegious theft; of all crimes 
connected with the employees or affairs of the tri- 
bunal ; of traffic in contraband of war ; and of every 
kind of sorcery and superstition — which last crimes, 
thanks to the Moors and Jews, caused more trouble 
in Spain than all the others produced. Finally, 
Hefele shows that at Nordlingen — a Protestant 
town of Germany, having then a population of 
six thousand — the Protestant authorities burned 
in four years (1590-94) thirty-five sorcerers. Ap- 
plying these proportions to Spain, where sorcery 
was then at least as prevalent, there should have 



158 The Truth About the Inquisition. 

been, in four years, fifty thousand sorcerers exe- 
cuted in that country ; that is, twenty thousand 
more than Llorente assigns as victims of every 
kind to the Spanish Inquisition during its career of 
three hundred and thirty years. Let the reader 
reflect as to the probable proportion of heretics in 
Llorente' s thirty thousand victims.* 



* Yoltaire says of the Spauisli Inquisition: 

"Ce sanglant tribunal, 
Ce monument ajfreux du pouvoir monacal, 
Que VEspagne a recu, mats qu'elle-meme abhorre 
Qui venge les autels, mais qui les deslwnore; 
Qui, tout couvert de sang, de flammes entoure. 
Egorge les mortels avec unfer sacre.' 9 '' 
And yet, this same Voltaire, becoming, to use the words of M. 
deMaistre, "a remarkable monument of that good sense which 
perceives facts, and of that passion which is blind to their 
causes," does not hesitate to admit, in his "Essai sur l'His- 
toire Ge^rale," vol. iv, ch. 177, that "In Spain, during the 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were none of those 
bloody revolutions, those conspiracies and cruel visitations 
which were seen in the other countries of Europe. In fact, 
were it not for the horrors of the Inquisition, we could not re- 
proach the Spain of that day With anything." That is, ob- 
serves M. de Maistre, the Sage avows that, were it not for the 
horrors of the Inquisition, we could not reprove that nation 
which, only by means of the Inquisition, escaped those hor- 
rors which dishonor all the others. At the commencement of 
the sixteenth century, adds the Catholic publicist, the 
Spaniards saw the rest of Europe in flames because of the wars 
of religion. They sustained the Inquisition as a political 
means to prevent those wars. 



LOUIS XL; THE TRAVESTIED AND 
THE REAL. 

Among the great calumniated of history a place 
in the very front rank must be assigned to King 
Louis XI., of France. Not only has he been visited 
with what Macaulay would style historical decapita- 
tion, but he has been utterly travestied until he 
excites ridicule in schoolboy and philosopher alike. 
One of the most salient characteristics of this mon- 
arch was religious devotion, and it actuated itself 
especially in regard to the Mother of God. Protes- 
tant and f reethinking writers have therefore endeav- 
ored to render his memory odious. With the excep- 
tion of his contemporary Commines, all historians, 
down to our own day, have sinned in their treatment 
of Louis XL ; some have yielded to blind hatred, 
others being victims of ignorance or of superficiality. 
Claude de Seyssel, who has been justly styled the 
mitred valet of Louis XII., but obeyed the will of 
his master in decrying the reign of that master's 
enemy. Peter Mathieu thought that he could best 
write for Henry IV. by writing against Louis XL 
That writers of the calibre of Mezeray and Garnier 
should blindly follow the crowd is to be expected ; 
but one is pained on seeing Bossuet compromising 
his great name by crediting the hideous story which 
will form the main object of this article. When so 

159 



160 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Heal. 

great an aberration is encountered, no wonder that 
the gentle author of "Quentin Durward" should 
feel justified in exhibiting the enormities of Louis 
XI. by the light of the burning human torches at 
Plessis, and that Casimir Delavigne and Boucicault 
should have trasferred the bloody shower of the 
scaffold of Nemours to the stage. But had Scott 
written his entrancing novel some years later, we 
doubt whether he would have represented Louis XI. 
as a mocking Tiberius and a bloody Rabelais, as 
a wolf in sheep's clothing, and as a superstitious 
driveller. For the nineteenth century, redolent of 
humbug as it is, has witnessed the revelation of 
many historical shams, and, e converso, a number 
of wonderful rehabilitations, among which not the 
least striking is that of the man of Montlhery. 

During the reign of Louis Philippe there appeared 
a History of Louis XL, which would have been ex- 
pected, because of its solidity, rather from the pen 
of a Benedictine than from that of a professor of 
the modern University of Paris. Its author, Urban 
Legeay, had spent ten years in its composition ; and 
his aim was to conduct his work just as Louis XL 
presided over, nay made his monarchy, — seeing 
nothing but its interest ; so true is it that there are 
often similarities between the subject and the worthy 
writer of a history. M. Barbey d' Aurevilly, one 
of the most judicious of modern critics, drawing at- 
tention lately to this unfortunately neglected work, 
sees in the qualities of Louis XL, one of the most 
sensible of men, the most sure of his own actions, 



Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 161 

the "most desirous of the one thing," an attraction 
"for all the faculties of this Urban Legeay, who 
was also sensible, who also applied himself to his 
task, never turning off to side-issues; and resem- 
bling Louis XI. also by that which was wanting in 
that great man — for the grandeur of Louis XL, 
equal, for him who knows how to measure it, to 
that of Charlemagne, seems inferior to the great- 
ness of Charlemagne only in that which captivates 
the imagination at a distance— external eclat and 
poetry."* The work of Legeay has yet to be ap- 
preciated ; he was no eagle, and his style was ordi- 
nary. But the future historian of Louis XL will 
find in his book the material for a successful one. 
It is something more than a history of Louis XL : 
it is a history of the histories of the monarch, and 
his criticism of these confirms the judgments 
emitted in his own. He presents to us a Louis XL 
of whom we have not even dreamt, and sets forth 
in all its merited grandeur a reign the glory of 
which could not be, after all, entirely abolished, 
since it left France prosperous and aggrandized; 
whereas monarchs like Louis XIV. and Napoleon, 



* M. d'Aurevilly says: "It is said that Montesquieu, at the 
time of his death, had the intention of writing the Life of 
Louis XL Certainly it would have been more brilliant than 
the work of M. Legeay; it would have shown more style, 
and even of perception. It would have presented Montes- 
quieu; but would it have better presented Louis XI? Would 
it have shown more historic reality? That is doubtful." Cf. 
vol. viii. 



162 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 

whose greatness is not contested, left her bleeding 
and diminished. 

To proclaim the greatness of Louis XI., in face of 
the universal contempt shown for him, as at least 
equal to that of Charlemagne, was to declare one's 
fitness for a lunatic asylum ; but Legeay, very unlike 
a modern universitarian, thought of nothing but 
truth. He realized that Charlemagne had to do with 
barbarians, whom he defeated and baptized; Louis 
XL had to do with civilized lords, many of whom 
were as powerful as himself. The glories of Charle- 
magne had been prepared by Charles Martel and 
Pepin, and above all by the Papacy, then all-power- 
ful and unresisted, even in whispers; Louis XL fol- 
lowed immediately upon imbeciles, and was forced 
to contend with memories of Crecy Poitiers, Azin- 
court, and of the murdered Maid of Orleans. During 
his entire reign the great lords, no longer loyal chev- 
aliers after the fashion of the Paladins, were allied 
with the English and Burgundians, and leagued 
in revolt against the crown ; but he defeated their 
projects as Charlemagne never defeated his barba- 
rians, by. force of intellect. But although intellect- 
uality was the special characteristic of the greatness 
of Louis XL, he did not confine his sword to its 
scabbard ; he was a thorough soldier, and he would 
not have his sword forgotten when designing his 
statue for his tomb in Notre-Dame de Clery. That 
he could be brave even to audacity is shown by the 
interview of Peronne. Nor was Louis XL the mon- 
ster of duplicity which history has depicted him as 



Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 163 

being ; Legeay proves that among the rulers of his 
time this sovereign was perhaps the only just one, 
and the only one faithful to his word. Louis XI. was 
every inch a king; a greater one than Louis XIV., 
who was more of a sultan, and more "the sun," 
but, to use the words of D'Aurevilly, less a king 
in permanent action and incessancy of function. 
Charlemagne in his old age cried at the window 
from which he gazed on the river by which he 
expected the Norman ships to arrive: but when 
dying, Louis XI. wept not at the thought of the 
coming of those Yalois who were worse than Nor- 
mans for France, but counselled his son in regard to 
the evils he foresaw. Charlemagne was the Empire, 
Louis XL was France. The grand monarque Louis 
XIV. had many mistresses, and the most costly 
of all, Versailles; Louis XL had no mistress but 
France; he was without love, save for his state, 
remarked Commines, who knew him well. Legeay 
finds, and D'Aurevilly agrees with him, in Charle- 
magne, St. Louis, Louis XIV., and Napoleon, an 
imagination which frequently carries them away; 
but Louis XL was always master of himself. 

We have been led to these reflections while mak- 
ing some researches in reference to an almost uni- 
versally credited charge against Louis XL , to the 
effect that the children of the Duke of Nemours were 
placed under the scaffold of their father, there to 
receive on their white robes the trickling blood of 
the victim. Michelet admits that the historians con- 
temporary with Louis XL, even the most hostile, do 



164 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real, 

not allude to such a horror. But such silence does 
not prevent the champion liar of the universe, Vol- 
taire, from accrediting the accusation . He says that 
46 all the grace accorded to this unfortunate prince 
was that he might be buried in the habit of a Fran- 
ciscan, — a grace which was worthy of these atrocious 
times, and which equalled their barbarity. But what 
was not usual, and was introduced by Louis XI., 
was the placing of the young children of the Duke 
under the scaffold, to be covered there with their 
father's blood. . . . The unheard-of torments 
suffered by the princes of Nemours-Armagnac would 
be incredible, if they were not attested by the re- 
quest presented by the unfortunate princes to the 
Estates, after the death of Louis XL, in 1483."* 
And Duclos says: "The children of the culprit 
were placed under the scaffold, in order that the 
blood of their father should fall upon them."f One 
would have expected better things of Gamier, but 
he says: "By a barbarity hitherto unexampled in 
our history, the unfortunate children of the Duke 
of Nemours were placed under the scaffold, that the 
blood of their father might flow on their heads. "J 
Before we refute this allegation, let us consult 
Duclos, an historian not suspected of devotion to 



* "Essai sur les Mceurs," etc. See also letter to Linguet, 
June, 1776. 

t "Histoire de Louis XL," vol. ii, p. 297. 

% "Histoire de France," ed. 176S, vol. xviii, p. 339 



Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Heal. 165 

Louis XI., in order to learn the crime, the expiation 
of which has furnished material to novelist and 
dramatist for a superlatively harrowing scene. The 
Duke of Nemours, in spite of the obligations binding 
him to Louis XL, entered into nearly all the plots 
against that monarch, and finally joined the faction 
of the Count d'Armagnac, head of his house. "Ar- 
magnac was one of those who prove that tyranny is 
sustained by baseness, and that legitimate power, 
when its possessor does not abuse it, is favorable to 
the happiness of the people." The King, informed 
of the excesses of the Count, and suspecting him of 
relations with the English, entrusted the Count de 
Danimartin with full powers for investigation. The 
result was a declaration, on the part of the royal 
council, that the Duke of Nemours having obtained 
his duchy from the King, and having been loaded 
with favors, had been one of the chief inciters of 
civil war; and that having received pardon, and 
having sworn to serve his Majesty against all per- 
sons, he had again excited insurrection and had 
joined the Count d'Armagnac. Consequently Ne- 
mours was declared guilty of high-treason. But 
Nemours begged the intercession of Dammartin ; and 
Louis again pardoned the rebel Duke, "on condition 
that if he again swerved in his fidelity he should be 
punished for the crimes already committed. . . . 
He was ungrateful, and was one of the first to declare 
himself in the war of the 'Public Weal. ' " He even 
sought the assassination of his sovereign. Finally, 
Louis caused his arrest ; he was condemned to de- 



166 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Beat. 

capitation, and executed in the Halles de Paris on 
August 4, 1477. 

''Lie, lie bravely: something will always remain. 
Fling: mud: some of it will stick." Yoltaire was 
never more fully actuated by his cynically daring 
axiom than when, in his anxiety to asperse the mem- 
ory of Louis XL, he said that "the unheard-of tor- 
ments suffered by the princes of Nemours-Armagnac 
would be incredible, if they were not attested by the 
request presented by the unfortunate princes to the 
Estates after the death of Louis XL, in 1483." The 
request to which the Sage of Ferney alludes was 
presented by the lawyer Masselin, and in the time of 
Duclos and Garnier it was preserved in the Royal 
Library at Paris; these authors knew it well, and 
the latter made a lon^ extract from it in the nine- 
teenth volume of his work. Now, in the pleading of 
Masselin there is not a word such as Voltaire insin- 
uates as existing, and which Duclos and Garnier 
implicitly recognize as existent ; even the rhetorical 
figures employed by the interested advocate to excite 
sympathy for his unfortunate clients can not be 
twisted so as to justify the anecdote so eagerly used 
by the romancists. Hence it is that Henri Martin, 
the pet historian of modern freethinkers, whose 
writings are marked by error, hatred, and prejudice, 
in things both little and great, is compelled to reject 
it. "It is a fable invented by the reaction against 
the memory of Louis XL ' ' * And Fournier admits : 



"Histoire de France," 4th ed., vol. vii, p. 135. 



Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Heal. 167 

"the execution of Nemours was very different from 
that which is generally described ; the frightful de- 
tails, the children kneeling under the scaffold, the 
shocking deluge of blood, as Casimir Delavigne 
represents it, form a mass of melodramatic para- 
phernalia which must now be relegated to the 
'Crimes Celebres.'"* 

As to the crimes so freely ascribed to Louis XI., 
for which he is said to have begged pardon in 
advance from the saints whose leaden images he 
carried on his hatband, many of them are either 
without any historical foundation, or, when properly 
investigated, prove to have been not crimes, but 
justifiable actions on the part of a monarch. Duclos 
did not err on the side of devotion or in appre- 
ciation of true devotional character; but he had 
enough good sense to remark: "I need not allude 
to the monstrous alliance of cruelty and superstition 
which is ascribed to Louis XL in the charge that he 
was wont to ask permission from the Blessed Virgin 
for his assassinations ; those nonsensical tales merit 
no refutation. "f If there was one quality which 
supereminently shone in Louis XL, one which 
stamped him as a born ruler of men, it was that of 
knowing how to choose his instruments. All those 
whom he raised to eminent positions of trust were 
men of great capacity. Some, like Cardinal Balue, 
were traitors — for the fifteenth century, the moral 



* "L'Esprit clans THistoire," 2d ed., p. 113. 
t Loc. cit., vol. ii, p. 514. 



168 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Meal, 

decadence and vital end of the Middle Age, was the 
period of traitors, — but he who sought only the 
good of France was never deceived as to their fit- 
ness for their positions. Romancists like Scott may 
be prodigal of sneers for Tristan 1'Herniite, "the 
executioner/' We are not astounded when we hear 
the American journalist vituperate a President of 
the United States as an "ex-hangman," on account 
of his having been a sheriff of his county. But 
when grave historians hold up Louis XI. to ridi- 
cule for his confidence in Tristan, they betray their 
own unfitness to lift the torch of investigation. 
This "hangman" was a brave ofiicer, a master of 
artillery, a tried servant of the crown, who had sub- 
dued the men of Liege in 1457, and who, as the 
executor of the high justice of the King, deserved 
as much respect as any Minister of the Interior who 
is responsible for the internal order of a nation. 

Much has been said of the absolutism of Louis 
XL, but the truth would be better consulted if we 
were to say that for the mixture of feudality and 
government by Estates, which had obtained in 
France since the reign of Philip the Fair, he sub- 
stituted a new form of government which may be 
called a limited monarchy;* a form which is as 
essentially different from the absolute as from the 
constitutional. The limited monarchy is different 



* By a limited monarchy we understand one in which the 
national assemblies, convoked at long intervals, have neither 
their own will nor action, and meet only to sanction the pro- 
jects of the ruler; one in which the head of the state possesses 



Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 169 

from the constitutional, inasmuch as in the latter 
the national assemblies, periodically gathered, enjoy 
political rights, the exercise of which gives to the 
nation a share in the conduct of public affairs. The 
limited differs from the absolute monarchy, because 
it respects the organic laws already issued by the 
various powers of the state, because it tolerates 
local liberties, such as provincial and municipal 
privileges, etc. A few of the acts of Louis XI. 
were violently despotic ; but he cannot be said to 
have established a despotic monarchy, for he found 
in the prerogatives of parliament and in the national 
customs an impediment to the erection of the royal 
will into a supreme law. His excesses remained 
excesses, and not until the reign of Francis I. 
(1515-47) did France see the royal will become 
legality. During the reign of Louis XI. the prog- 
ress of the Third Estate was constant, and that by 
the very nature of events. According as a greater 
number of capable men were formed in its bosom, 
its influence became more considerable, and the 
administration passed, to a great extent, into its 
hands. .The policy of Louis XI. contributed greatly 
to this result: he diminished the power of the 
nobles, whom he did not love, and proportionably 
elevated the others. He augmented the liberties of 
the communes, and was the real King of the people. 



all the legislative and executive power, disposes of the public 
revenue without rendering any account, and can levy taxes at 
his own will." Poirson: "Precis de l'Histoire de France 
pendant les Temps Modernes." Paris, 1840. 



RICHELIEU AS AN ECCLESIASTIC. 

Few of the world's great ones have been sub- 
jected to such contrary judgments as those passed 
on the character of the Minister of Louis XIII. 
In his own day the flattery and hatred he experi- 
enced were equally blind and equally interested; 
many declared that he was the visible hand of 
Providence exalting France, while many others saw 
in him only an intriguer, a debauchee, and the evil 
genius of Europe. He was an ecclesiastic as well 
as a statesman ; and in its criticism of churchmen 
the world readily verifies that saying which La- 
fontaine applied to the generality of its judgments. 
It pays but little attention to favorable truth, but 
eagerly credits any disparaging lie : 

"L'homme est de glace aux Veritas, 
II est de feu pour le mensonge." • 

But upon whose authority do they rely who 
decry the private character of Richelieu? Chiefly 
on that of Henri de Lomenie, Comte de Brienne, 
a writer who was not born at the time of the sup- 
posed events he narrates, who adduces no proofs 
whatever, and who, remarks the most painstaking 
of all Richelieu's modern critics, probably wrote 
his anecdotes in the prison of St. Lazare, in which 
his other insane ebullitions had caused him to be 

170 



Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. Ill 

immured.* Paul de Gondi, Cardinal de Retz, the 
Jansenistic coadjutor of Paris, is also brought for- 
ward; but the historical authority of this too fa- 
mous "Frondeur" must be regarded as nil. In 
his "Memoires," observes Sainte-Beuve, ' 'where he 
speaks so candidly of himself, he continually uses 
such expressions as 'theatre' and 'comedy;' he re- 
gards everything simply as a play; and frequently, 
when speaking of the principal personages with 
whom he has to deal, he treats them exactly as a 
stage-manager would his actors. . . . He openly 
presents himself as an able impressario , arranging 
his work. . . . There are some passages in his 
'Memoires' where he seems to try to rival Moliere 
rather than to combat Mazarin."f In Book I. he 
tells us that when made coadjutor to his uncle, 
he "ceased to frequent the pit, and went on the 
stage." When this work — which so many regard 
as an arsenal of weapons against Richelieu and 
his policy — was read by the poet J. B. Rousseau, 
he declared that it was "a salmagundi of good 
and bad, written sometimes well and sometimes 
miserably and very tedious. ... I am astonished 
when I see a priest, an Archbishop, a Cardinal, a 
gentleman, a man of mature age, describing him- 
self, as he does, as a duellist, a concubinary, and, 
what is worse, a deliberate hypocrite, — one who, 



* Avenel : "Lettres, Instructions Diplomatiques, et Papiers 
Etat., du Cardinal de Richelieu;' 
t "Causeries du Lundi," vol. v. 



172 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 

during a retreat made in the seminary, took a res- 
olution to be wicked before God and good before 
the world." In 1675 the Duke de la Rochefou- 
cauld, in his "Maximes," said of De Retz : "His 
imagination, rather than his memory, supplies him 
with facts." Mme. de Sevigne, writing to her 
daughter concerning her correspondence with De 
Eetz, said: "If anything foolish drops from your 
pen, he will be as much charmed as if it were 
serious." One or two exquisite morsels of this 
famous authority will illustrate his honesty : "Scru- 
ples and greatness have always been incompatible." 
"The crime of usurping a crown is so grand that 
it may pass for a virtue." Speaking of his con- 
spiracy against the life of Richelieu (1636), he 
said: "The crime appeared to me to be consecrated 
by grand examples, and justified and honored by 
great risks." Truly did De Retz say of himself 
(B. I.) that he possessed "Fame peul-Mre la moins 
ecclesiastique qui fut dans Vunivers." And let us 
not forget that this precious intriguer was a youth- 
ful abbe at the time, and that it is very unlikely 
that such secrets would have been confided to him 
during the lifetime of Richelieu ; while if he knew 
of them only after the great Minister's death, the 
escapades in question could not have been so "no- 
torious" as Voltaire would have us believe. Again, 
De Retz himself tells us that Richelieu preserved 
appearances — "11 avait assez de religion pour le 
monde." 



Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 173 

Griff et, in his refutation of Voltaire's reasons 
for denying the authenticity of Richelieu's ''Polit- 
ical Testament" (addressed to Louis XIII., and 
a monumental proof of the Cardinal's sincerity and 
wisdom), speaks of authentic records which detail 
the complaints concerning Richelieu often made by 
Louis XIII. to his confessor, F. Caussin.* The 
King blamed the Cardinal for prodigality and love 
of display, and was scandalized because his Emi- 
nence had procured from the Holy See a dispensation 
from the recitation of the Office; but not a word 
did his Majesty drop in derogation from the moral 
character of his Minister. Griffet quotes the "Me- 
moires" of the contemporary Montchal, Archbishop 
of Toulouse, who says that Richelieu " asked the 
Holy See for a Brief authorizing him to prosecute 
some dissolute bishops." Now, is it likely that the 
Cardinal would have so acted if his own guilt was 
"notorious?" And it is to be noted that Montchal 
shows great hostility to Richelieu; nevertheless, he 
fails to remark any such inconsistency. Voltaire 
affected to disbelieve in the authenticity of Riche- 
lieu's magnificent "Political Testament" to Louis 
XIII., because of its eloquent exhortations to virtue, 
"ostensibly" written by one who was "notoriously" 
delinquent;! and, notwithstanding this assertion, 



* "Traite" des differentes sortes de preuves qui servent a 
£tablir la v^rite de l'Histoire." Liege, 1770. 

f "Doutes nouveaux sur le testament attribue' au Card, de 
Kihcelieu, et Arbitrage entre M. Yoltaire et M. de Fonce- 
magne." 



174 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic, 

the Sage of Ferney says elsewhere* that our Car- 
dinal's errors were "hidden weaknesses, which, in 
spite of all the care taken to cover them, show 
the littleness of greatness." We are, therefore, 
justified in concluding that Richelieu was not an 
immoral man. But we should like to draw the 
attention of the reader to a point which is seldom 
or never noticed — his character as a bishop. 

Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu was born 
in Paris on September 9, 1585. Like nearly all 
persons whose mature age showed them to be truly 
great, his childhood exhibited no precocity ; he was 
an ordinarily gifted boy. His first lessons were 
received, under the eyes of his mother, from the 
Prior of St. Florent de Saumur; and at the age of 
twelve he was sent to the College of Navarre, then 
one of the most famous in Paris. Having completed 
the ordinary course, he entered the "Academy," 
or military school. Avenel speculates as to the 
future of young Richelieu had he followed the 

* "Histoire Universelle," vol. iv, p. 89.— The ''Political 
Testament," one of the most solid instructions ever addressed 
to royalty, was drawn up by Richelieu in duplicate, — one copy 
going to his Majesty, the other to the Cardinal's niece, the 
Duchess d'Aiguillon, who, dying in 1675, left it to her con- 
fidante, Mme. du Vigean. It was published in 1688, went 
through many editions, and finally, in 1749, Voltaire attacked 
its authenticity in a dissertation subjoined— why, he alone 
knew — to his tragedy of "SCmiramis." He afterward repub- 
lished this dissertation, "Des Mensonges Imprimes," in his 
"Essai sur l'Histoire Generate. " Of the fifteen objections of 
which it consists, the one noticed above is probably the strong- 
est; but all were triumphantly refuted by Foncemagne in 



Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 175 

career for which he seemed destined. "He admired 
the military profession, and in certain circumstances 
he bore arms ; he always superintended the direc- 
tion of the army, its organization, its commissariat, 
etc. Frequently he laid aside the red cassock and 
donned the surcoat of the soldier; often he com- 
manded in person ; and we constantly find, in his 
papers, plans of battles and of fortifications designed 
by him. In councils of war his opinion often pre- 
vailed over that of experienced generals, — not be- 
cause of any deference to his rank, but because 
of the conviction that his perceptions were just and 
his judgment solid."* 

However, the young cadet left the Academy when 
eighteen years of age, and entered the theological 
schools of the Sorbonne. In 1606 Henry IV. named 
him for the bishopric of Lugon, although he was 
then only a deacon ; "and since the said Du Plessis," 
wrote the King to d'Halincourt, his ambassador to 
the Holy See, "has not yet reached the age re- 
quired by the canons, and since I am quite sure 
that his merit and ability supply this defect, you 
will beg his Holiness to grant the necessary dis- 



1750. The latest author of note to treat of the "Political Tes- 
tament" was La Bruyere, and he declared that "the man who 
performed such wonders (as Richelieu did) either never wrote 
at all, or he must have written this document." Montesquieu 
agreed with La Bruyere. In fine, this work will hear compar- 
ison with the similar ones composed by Fenelon and Bossuet 
for the guidance of their royal pupils. 

* u La Jeunesse de Richelieu," in the "Revue des Quest. 
Hist.," 1869, vol. vi, p. 164. 



176 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 

pensation ; for the said Du Plessis is in every way 
capable of serving the Church of God."* The 
royal request was granted, and the young abbe 
was consecrated at Rome on April 17, 1607, and 
immediately returned to the Sorbonne to take his 
degrees. His assiduity in study had told on his 
health, and he was unable to make the journey to 
his diocese until December, 1608. Received as was 
customary by the chapter and magistracy, he al- 
luded to the Huguenots of Lucon in these words : 
"Many there are who differ with us in belief; I 
trust that we shall all be united in affection." 
And while ever firm in insisting on the rights of 
Holy Mother Church, his entire career at Lucon 
showed him the defender of those of Protestants ; f 
although, as he was once forced to lament to a 
Huguenot friend, his sentiments were seldom re- 
ciprocated. 

The diocese of Lucon was one of the poorest in 
France, and it is interesting to read Richelieu's 
own description of some of his privations. JSToblesse 
oblige, and the new prelate, a member of one of 
the first families in France, was expected to make 
an appropriate entry into his episcopal city. But 
he had no carriage, and it would have been in- 



* Berger de Xivrey, "Lettres de Henri IV.," vol. vii, p. 53. 

f Cardinal Richelieu's impartiality was especially mani- 
fested in his letters to Pontchartraiu, secretary of state for 
Protestant affairs, guaranteeing the fidelity of the famous 
ministers du Plessy-Mornay and Chamier. 



Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic, 111 

decorous to use a hired one; he therefore borrowed 
an equipage from a friend. On arriving at the 
episcopal palace, he found it uninhabitable and 
almost beyond repair, and he was compelled to hire 
apartments and buy all necessary furniture. Even 
the vestments of his pontifical office were wanting, 
and he thought himself fortunate, after a time, 
in procuring them in two colors. "Certainly," he 
wrote to a friend, "this is the most wretched bish- 
opric in France; but, then, you know what kind 
of man the Bishop is." Eichelieu could rely on 
little or no revenue in a diocese poor at all times, 
and then impoverished by war; and his own means 
were small, for he was a younger son. He there- 
fore, as he said, was as poor as a monk, though 
without any vow of poverty ; and on one occasion 
he was compelled by need to sell a valuable tap- 
estry, a family heirloom. But, despite his small 
resources, he was a father to the poor, and did all 
he could to relieve their necessities. 

Scarcely had he settled down in his new home 
when he made an episcopal visitation of the whole 
diocese; and he wrote to the Cardinal de la 
Rochefoucauld, one of the most zealous bishops 
of the time, that he found "ecclesiastical discipline 
and authority everywhere weakened." To remedy 
the evil he called on the Capuchins (whom the 
famous Friar Joseph, the future "Grey Cardinal," 
was then exciting to renewed zeal) for missions; 
and he immediately established, with his own money, 
a new seminary, saying to its president that "no 



178 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 

act of his life had afforded him so much pleasure." 
The first establishment, after the mother-house, 
possessed by the famous Oratorians founded by De- 
Berulle, was given them in his diocese by Riche- 
lieu, and he justly prided himself on this fact in 
his "Memoires." When a parish became vacant, he 
invariably conferred it by concursus; but if, as was 
often the case, some powerful laic held the right 
of presentation, he insisted on a proper nomination. 
A certain Madame de Sainte-Croix having presented 
an unworthy candidate, he wrote to her: "I beg 
you to properly regard my fulfillment of duty when 
I refuse to entrust to this person the care of souls 
redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. By making 
another selection, you will also set a good example 
to others who enjoy the right of presentation." 

Work was always a passion with Richelieu, and, 
as the documents published by Avenel prove, when 
he was not occupied in the public affairs of his 
diocese, he was engaged in the direction of souls, 
in settling quarrels and preventing duels, in con- 
soling the afilicted, and in study. Those who have 
never regarded him in any other light than that 
of a courtier may smile at the idea of Richelieu 
the student, and yet the future Minister's studious 
habits were well known to his compeers. The 
famous Gabriel de l'Aubespine (Albaspinseus), 
Bishop of Orleans, certainly a competent judge,* 



* De l'Aubespine was, according to "Gallia Christiana,' 
l vir totius antiquitatis ecclesiasticce peritissimus," 



Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 179 

wrote to him on one occasion: "I have always 
counted much on your talent for ecclesiastical and 
spiritual matters ; and now that you study so unin- 
termittingly, my estimation is increased, and I feel 
that you would not take such pains if you were not 
meditating some great design." 

Even the illustrious theologian, Cardinal Du- 
perron, admired the zeal of the Bishop of Lugon. 
In a letter written to Richelieu in 1610, when the 
prelate was but twenty-five years of age, a mutual 
friend said: "The Cardinal seizes every occasion to 
manifest his esteem for you. A certain person hav- 
ing praised you as eminent among young prelates, 
his Eminence declared that you ought not be men- 
tioned among young prelates, for the oldest might 
well yield you precedence; and, for his part, he 
wished to set the example." Praise from Sir Hu- 
bert is praise indeed. 

During his seven years' charge at Lugon, Riche- 
lieu made several trips to Paris ; but on all these 
occasions he kept his episcopal position ever in 
mind, and frequently he preached in the principal 
pulpits of the capital. Aubery, who drew his in- 
formation from the family of Richelieu, says that 
the King and Queen often attended these sermons, 
and that "they nearly always declared that no 
preacher ever made more impression on their 
hearts." The sermons of Cardinal Richelieu have 
not come down to us, but we must suppose that, 
whatever may have been his merits as a poet and 
playwright, they were good ones. He certainly 



180 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 

possessed, remarks a judicious critic,* the chief 
requisites of a fine preacher — force of logic, ele- 
vation of thought, and energy of expression. 

The assiduity displayed by Richelieu in his 
studies while Bishop of Lucon was the more ad- 
mirable because much of the time left him by the 
cares of his diocese had to be given to an exten- 
sive correspondence with many Roman cardinals 
and with the Papal Nuncio at Paris. Again — and 
this fact is worthy of note by those who believe 
him to have been a debauchee, — from his twenty- 
third year until his death in 1642, Richelieu was 
nearly always in physical pain. The first letter 
(1605) published by Avenel shows him in a pain- 
ful convalescence after a long illness; and so on 
through the entire series we find him generally a 
victim to bodily suffering ; his last attack continued 
more than a year. 

Richelieu resigned his diocese in 1616 to become 
Prime Minister of France ; and he himself, toward 
the close of his life, well epitomized his later career 
when he said to the King: "I promised your 
Majesty that I would use all my ability, and all the 
power you would give me, to crush the Huguenot 
party, to lay low the pride of the nobles, to force 
all your subjects to do their duty, and to cause 
foreign nations to properly respect your Majesty's 
name; and to effect these ends I insisted that I 



Barthelemy, "Caractere de Kichelieu," 



Itichelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 181 

should have your entire confidence."* Concerning 
this better known portion of the life of Richelieu, 
we would merely remark that few French historians 
have avoided either blind hatred or blind praise in 
treating of it; and foreigners, especially English- 
men and Germans, can not allude to it with equa- 
nimity; for, as Malherbe said in 1627, "the 
space between the Ehine and the Pyrenees appeared 
to Eichelieu as a field too small for the lilies of 
France ; he wanted them to wave on both shores of 
the Mediterranean, and wished their odor to be 
wafted even to the farthest Orient." 

From the "Memoires" of Richelieu, published 
in the collection of Petitot (Series II., vol. x), 
Paris, 1823, we take the following particulars of the 
Cardinal's daily life while Minister: He retired at 
eleven o'clock, and, having slept three or four 
hours, called for his dispatches, and then wrote or 
dictated the replies. At six he slept again, and at 
eight arose. After prayers his secretaries came for 
instructions; then he received the Ministers of 
State until eleven. At midday he heard Mass, cel- 
ebrated by Friar Joseph. Then he took a short 
walk, giving audience to special and important 
parties. Then he lunched — fourteen covers being 
laid at his own table, thirty for invited guests at 
another, and a larger number at a third for his 
pages and the officers of his household. After 
lunch he conversed for a couple of hours with his 



"Testament Politique." 



182 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 

familiars and with literary men, and the remainder 
of the day he worked at affairs of state. In the 
early evening he took a walk, meanwhile again 
giving audiences. The evening hours were passed 
with music, reading, or general talk, as the Cardinal 
thought that sleep was better wooed by previous 
conversation of a character neither sad nor rollick- 
ing. He seldom said Mass, but he confessed every 
week, receiving Holy Communion from his chaplain. 
We may not dwell on the great Cardinal's career 
as statesman, but we close our article with a pic- 
ture of his final hours as man.* When it became 
evident that Richelieu had but a short time to 
live, the King paid him a farewell visit, and was 
thus addressed by the dying man: "Sire, in taking 
farewell of your Majesty I have the consolation 
of knowing that I leave your kingdom in a more 
glorious condition, and with a greater reputation 
than it ever hitherto enjoyed. All your enemies 
are humiliated. Only one reward for all my serv- 
ices do I ask from your Majesty, and that is 
your good-will and protection for my nephews; 
and I give them my blessing only on condition 
that they are ever your faithful subjects." He 



* "Recit de ce qui s'est passe un peu avant la mort de M. 
le Cardinal de Richelieu, arrivee le jeudi, 4 Dec, 1642, sur le 
midi" (Bibl. Nat. MSS. Fonds Dupuy, vol. DXC, fol. 298, 
recto); Griffet, "Histoire de Louis XIII.," vol. Ill, p. 576; 
Lettre d'Heuri Arnauld, Abbe de Saint-Nicolas, au president 
Barillon, Dec. 6, 1642 (Bibl. Nat. Fonds Francais, vol. XX, 
DCXXXV) ; cited by Barthelemy, loc. cit. 



Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 183 

then conjured his physician to tell him frankly how 
long he might expect to live, and hearing that in 
twenty-four hours he would be dead or well, he de- 
manded Extreme Unction. When the parish priest 
of Saint-Eustache, approaching with the holy oils, 
remarked that his high ecclesiastical rank dispensed 
him from answering the customary questions, Riche- 
lieu insisted on being treated "like an ordinary 
Christian.' ' The priest then recited the principal 
articles of faith, and asked him if he believed in 
them all. "Absolutely," he replied; "and would 
that I had a thousand lives to give for the faith 
and the Church !" — "Do you forgive all your ene- 
mies?" asked the priest. "With all my heart," he 
answered; "and I call God to witness that I have 
ever intended only the good of religion and of the 
State." Being requested to pray to God for his 
recovery, he protested : "God forbid ! I pray only 
to do his will." In a few hours the King heard of 
his bereavement, and exclaimed : "The enemies of 
France will not profit by the death of Richelieu. I 
shall go on with all he has begun." 



LOUIS XIII. AS HE WAS. 

History has involved the characters of some per- 
sons in an obscurity as impenetrable to our inspec- 
tion as that mask with which the famous prisoner 
of Pignerol and the Bastile was made to hide his 
identity from not only his contemporaries, but, it 
would seem, from all future investigators. One of 
these subjects is Louis XIII. But critics have suc- 
ceeded in showing at least whom the iron mask did 
not conceal, though they have failed in determining 
whom it did; and just so we of the present — pro- 
vided, of course, that we wish to see — can unmask 
the countenance of Louis XIII. , and regard him, 
not as the puppet of Eichelieu, not as a mere non- 
entity among kings, but as a monarch worthy of 
serious consideration. 

Louis XIII. had the misfortune of being born be- 
tween two consummately great sovereigns: he was 
the son of Henry IV. and the father of Louis XIV. ; 
and we are tempted to discern, in all the grandeur 
of his reign, either af continuation of the work of 
the Bearnais or a preparation for the glories of the 
grand monarque. At most, we echo the mass of his- 
torians, and regard him as a Eoi Faineant, dropped 
out of the eighth century, obeying a red-cassocked 
Master of the Palace with all the nonchalance of a 
true Merovingian — albeit, not lolling in an oxen- 

184 



Louis XIII. as He Was. 185 

drawn car ; for his warlike qualities are never denied. 
Again, while Henry IV., in comparison with Sully, 
can hold his own in our estimation, the personality 
of Louis XIII. is nearly obliterated by that of 
Richelieu; and we forget that just as we think no 
less of Sully because of the greatness of Henry IV., 
so the greatness of Richelieu should not lessen that 
of Louis XIII. ; for in the case of each pair the two 
chief constituents of true greatness were allies, not 
rivals. Henry IV. was a man of genius, Sully one 
of common-sense ; Louis XIII. possessed common- 
sense, Richelieu genius. 

Louis XIII. has been well styled the Just, and he 
would have merited the title had he been known 
for nothing else than his steadfast confidence in his 
Cardinal-Minister. But his contemporaries inform 
us that the monarch chafed under the yoke of the 
great statesman whom he could not but admire. 
We are told that he both envied and feared him, 
without whom, to use the words of Mme. de Motte- 
ville (the first to affirm this aversion), "he could 
not live, nor with him . ' ' La Rochefoucauld, another 
contemporary, says that the King ' 'bore the yoke im- 
patiently;" and that "he hated Richelieu," though 
"he never ceased to bend to the Cardinal's will." 
Montglat is illogical enough to insist that although 
Louis, after the death of his minister, assured the 
mourning relatives that he could never forget the 
prelate's great services, nevertheless "he was very 



186" Louis XIII. as He Was. 

glad to be rid of him." * Omer Talon tells us that 
"master and valet worried each other to death." 
Pontis makes of Louis a man without gratitude ; for 
he describes the King as coolly remarking, when he 
heard of the Cardinal's demise, "A great politician 
has gone;"t an d nearly all writers from Pontis to 
Bulwer have consecrated the phrase as an illustra- 
tion of the King's real appreciation of Richelieu. 
Bazin goes so far as to proclaim that Louis XIII. 
entertained no friendship whatever for the Cardi- 
nal.:]: Guizot would have us believe that "Louis 
experienced an instinctive repugnance for his Min- 
ister, and he never showed more than a reasonable 
fidelity toward a servant whom he did not love." 
Well, if Louis XIII. felt all the jealousy for 
Richelieu that these authors discern, if he was 
merely what most small-minded men are in the 
face of the great, then he exercised a magnanimity 
toward his bete noir which ought to excite our ven- 
eration. By keeping power in the hands of one 
who dwarfed him, when by a word he could have 
relegated him into obscurity; by sacrificing his 
jealousy to the glory of France, he gained a victory 
over self such as we may seldom find in the annals 
of monarchy. But alas ! this picture is imaginary. 
Louis XIII. was simply the friend of Richelieu. 



* "M^moires de Montglat," idem. — Brienne uses almost the 
same terms : "Le roi flit tout ravi d'en etre defait." 

t "M^moires de Pontis," idem, vol. ii. 

% "Histoire de France sous Louis XIII.," in preface, and in 
vol. ii, p. 456. Paris, 1842. 



touts 



XIII. a* He Was. 187 



In 1875 M. Marius Tophi published two hundred 
and fifty-eight letters of Louis XIII. to Richelieu, 
which he had dug out of the achives of the For- 
eign Office at Paris, that immense sleeping chamber 
of history. These letters are authentic in style, 
orthography, and signature ; and they completely 
destroy the common idea concerning the relations 
of Louis with his great Minister, while they furnish 
a view of the King's character which differs much 
from that obtained, for instance, from the impressive 
drama of Bulwer. They show us that Louis never 
ceased to love the Cardinal, or to confide entirely 
in him. Every line manifests the fact that, while 
their minds were of very unequal calibre, they were 
equally devoted to the welfare of their country. 
And what was the secret, demands M. Topin, by 
which Richelieu ever preserved the full confidence 
of his sovereign? He never acted but for the 
good of the State, and he never kept the King 
in ignorance of his projects. This is proved also 
by the seven enormous volumes of the Cardinal's 
letters, published by Avenel. 

The most ambitious and able intriguer could 
scarcely hope to supplant Richelieu in the heart of 
him who was informed of every project immediately 
on its conception. When separated far from each 
other, even though, as was generally the case, the 
Cardinal enjoyed unlimited powers, couriers were 
constantly bearing from Richelieu to the King de- 
tailed accounts of the public business. And we 



188 Louis XIII. as He Wt 



as. 



notice that generally it was Louis who formed the 
decisive resolution, even though the genius of his 
Minister may have prepared the royal mind for such 
action. In fact, many reports of the Cardinal bear 
marginal notes which indicate that Louis frequently 
resolved on a course diametrically opposite to that 
advised by the former. When the King was not 
with the army, he assisted at every meeting of his 
council, and clearly asserted his will. 

"Richelieu," says Topin, after having carefully 
examined these letters of both Cardinal and King, 
"while charging himself with the execution of the 
royal will, of course gave to it the imprint of his 
own strength ; and hence he appeared as its origi- 
nator to the governors, intendants, generals, ambas- 
sadors, etc., to whom he communicated his develop- 
ment of the royal opinion. Doubtless the salient 
trait of the royal policy were the Cardinal's own 
insinuation, and it was nearly always his genius 
which discerned the means most adapted to secure 
the end in view. But for persistence in following 
the path once chosen, for firmness and energy in 
maintaining their common system, we must place 
Louis XIII. alongside his Eminence." 

It might interest the reader were we to quote 
extensively from the correspondence so fortunately 
rescued from oblivion by the researches of M. Topin, 
but our space confines us to one letter. In 1626 the 
French court was divided as to the feasibility of a 
marriage which had been projected by Henry IV. 



Louis XIII. as He Was. 189 

between Gaston d' Orleans, the brother of Louis, 
and Mile, de Montpensier. Richelieu and the King 
favored this union, while the Cardinal's foes per- 
suaded Gaston that his own treacherous ambition 
would be better advanced by an alliance with some 
foreign princess. As a coup de main, Richelieu ten- 
dered his resignation, whereupon Louis wrote thus : 
"My cousin,* I have read your reasons for seeking 
repose. I desire your comfort and health more than 
even you can desire them, provided that you find 
them in the guidance of my affairs. Since you 
have been with me all has gone well, under the 
divine blessing, and I have full confidence in you. 
Never have I been served so well as by you. 
Therefore I beg of you not to retire. ... Be 
assured that I shall protect you against all persons 
whomsoever." Nor was his promise mere empty 
words; Louis XIII. could enforce respect to his 
will. "It is enough that it is I who wish it," he 
once said to the Cardinal, when making a similar 
promise. We shall give another instance of the 
King's solicitous affection for Richelieu. 

The war for the Mantuan succession, begun in 
1629, was at its height when the King was seized 
by a dangerous illness. During the crisis of the 
malady all the anxiety of Louis was for his Minister. 
The enemies of Richelieu, headed by the queen- 
mother, Marie dei Medici, were making every effort 



* This was the style in which the kings of France always 
Wrote to cardinals ? as well as to marshals, 



190 Louis XIII. as He Was. 

to unseat him ; but Louis was indomitably faithful 
to the interest which he felt to be that of France. 
On the decisive day of his illness he sent for the 
Duke of Montmorency and said to him: "I have 
two favors to ask of you. One is that you continue 
to show your wonted interest in the State; the 
other, that for love of me you love the Cardinal 
Kichelieu." * And the affection of Louis XIII. for 
his Minister survived the life of its object. Wit- 
ness the following letter written by the monarch on 
the day after the Cardinal's death (1642), and 
compare the impression produced by it to that con- 
veyed concerning the shallowness of Louis by the 
drama of Bulwer. 

"M. the Marquis de Fontenay: As everyone 
knows the signal services rendered me by my 
cousin the Cardinal-Duke de Eichelieu, and the 
many advantages which, by God's blessing, I have 
obtained through his counsels, no one can doubt 
that I grieve as I ought for the loss of so good and 
faithful a Minister. But I wish the world to know, 
by means of my own testimony on every possible 
occasion, how dear his memory is to me. ... I have 
resolved to retain in office all the persons who have 
served me under the administration of my cousin 
the Cardinal de Richelieu, and to call to my assist- 
ance my cousin the Cardinal Mazarin, who has 
given me so many proofs of his capacity and fidelity 



* Ducros, "Histoire du Due de Montmorency," vol. i, eh. 22, 



Louis XIII. as He Was. 191 

on the many occasions when I have employed him,— 
proofs of a devotion as great as though he had 
been born my subject. . . . You will communi- 
cate all the foregoing to our Holy Father the Pope, 
that he may know that the affairs of this kingdom 
will continue in the same course they have so long 
followed." 

And this devotion to the memory of Richelieu 
was proved not only by the appointment of Mazarin, 
whom he had desired as a successor, but was evinced 
by Louis XIII. when death called upon him. When 
he found that his life was drawing to a close, he 
actuated the design of Richelieu, by appointing the 
Queen, Anne of Austria, regent indeed of the king- 
dom, but with Mazarin as guide, that the policy of 
the great Minister might continue in force. 

Besides the letters of Louis XIII. to Richelieu, 
the French archives disgorged, a few years ago, 
another important historical monument which ad- 
ministrative imbecility had hitherto hidden from the 
student. M. Paul Faugeres, like a Benedictine in 
miniature, disinterred from the dust of centuries 
and published an unedited work of the Duke de 
Saint-Simon, nothing less than a "Comparison be- 
tween the First Three Bourbon Kings." Saint- 
Simon was seventy-two years old when he began 
this work; age hads somewhat mollified the irritated 
passions of the "great disdained" of Louis XIV., 
but had not lessened the talent of probably the 
most accomplished delineator who ever came to the 



192 Louis XIII. as lie Was. 

aid of history. He had not been personally ac- 
quainted with Louis XIII., as he was with the more 
glorified son ; but his own father, who owed every- 
thing to the former monarch, had imbued his young 
mind with sentiments of ardent admiration for one 
whom he rightly regarded as pre-eminent among 
the misunderstood of history. 

Saint-Simon saw Henry IY. and Louis XIV. re- 
splendent with a glory which was undeniable, even 
in the face of hatred, while Louis XIII. was almost 
effaced by the proximity of his father and his son. 
To draw his own father's benefactor forth from an 
unmerited obscurity became the ambition of the 
great portray er ; and they who have been accustomed 
to recur to his "Memoirs" for most of their knowl- 
edge of the period in which he lived, have now the 
opportunity of contemplating a restored Louis 
XIII. , — a figure, strange to say, even more resplen- 
dent than those which have hitherto attracted ex- 
clusive admiration. A contemporary critic of great 
acumen, M. Barbey d'Aurevilly, is enthusiastic in 
his praise of the manner in which Saint-Simon ful- 
filled his task : 

"The part of genius in history is to discover. 
In history, where nothing is created (for otherwise 
it would not be history) ; in history, where the im- 
agination has the right only to depict, but not to 
invent, as it may in many other spheres of human 
activity, — genius can only play the part of a supe- 
rior faculty in discovering, in men and things as 
they were, new but real points of view until then 



Louis XIII. as He Was. 193 

unknown and even unsuspected. The more of these 
points of view that are discovered, the greater is 
the genius. It is this power of genius, equal in his- 
tory to the power of creation in the other domains of 
thought, which shines in all its fullness and strength 
in this parallel of the first three Bourbon kings, as it 
is styled by Saint-Simon, in his special and singu- 
lar language. In this long comparison he speaks 
admirably of the two whom we knew; but he has 
discovered the third, of whom we knew nothing, at 
least in his complete and sublime entireness. . . . 
The violent and irritated soul of this man baffled 
in his ambition, of this 'despised one' of Louis 
XIV., this soul whose rage may have produced its 
genius, promised itself, as a supreme duty and a 
last satisfaction, to some day narrate that life of 
Louis XIII. which he knew from his father, and to 
compare it with those of the two glorified kings 
between whom his favorite had been buried in 
insignificance. Such was to be the swan's song of 
that man who was anything rather than a swan; 
who was rather an eagle, — the cruel eagle of his- 
tory, which in his 'Memoirs' he so often lacerated. 
6 'And this tardy justice, rendered to the memory 
of a man who had disappeared behind the intersect- 
ing rays of his father's and his son's glory, pro- 
duces two novelties. It gives us a Louis XIII. , we 
must admit, greater than the man who caused him 
to be forgotten ; and a Saint-Simon whose genius 
attains its fullness in an emotion of the heart, and 
who reaches, for the first time, to the divine in 



194 Louis XIII. as He Was. 

tenderness. ... Of course the crushing club of 
Hercules, used of old in the 'Memoirs,' falls as fu- 
riously as ever on all that Saint-Simon hates ; but 
it is rather for their qualities than their faults that 
he compares the three kings whom he judges ; and 
it is his serene manner of comparison which endows 
his book with an imposing sweetness of imparti- 
ality. . . ."* 

After a study of the parallel by Saint-Simon and 
of the correspondence unearthed by M. Topin, one 
finds that our pleasing dramatist, Bulwer, is guilty 
of gross injustice to the moral character of Louis 
XIII. The whole underplot of his play, some of 
its most impressive situations, and many of its most 
elevated sentiments, turn on the supposed libertin- 
ism of the monarch. Now, he was pre-eminently 
a chaste man ; so much so that he excited ridicule 
in a court too often the resort of mauvais sujets. 
One of the chief reasons for the extravagant ad- 
miration felt for Henry IV. by Frenchmen is the 
fact that he was a lady's man, the vert galant. A 
people overgiven to gallantry and raillery may ad- 
mire the virtue of a St. Louis or a St. Edward the 
Confessor — a virtue which is the development of 
religious heroism in conflict with passion — but they 
will scarcely respect mere frigidity of temperament, 
which, according to common report, was the source 
of the virtue of Louis XIII. 

Behold, then, one reason for the relegation of this 
monarch to obscurity. As the idea is expressed by 

* "Les (Euvres et Les Hommes du XlXme Siecle: Sensa- 
tions d'Histoire," vol. viii, p. 60. Paris, 1887. 



Louis XIII. as He Was. 195 

Aurevilly, Louis XIV. could say to La Valliere, like 
Hamlet to Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery;" but 
it was when too late. Louis XIII. might have said 
so to Mile. La Fayette, but before the catastrophe. 
As for the assertions concerning the morality of 
Louis XIII. , they are perverse even unto indecency ; 
but at most they assign to Louis accomplices who 
are very uncertain. 

We have shown that we are not obliged to accept 
our view of the character of Louis XIII., or of his 
relations with Richelieu, from the olden historians 
or from modern romancists and playwrights. To 
obtain a view of Louis it is not necessary to peer 
over the shoulders of his Minister. Eichelieu did 
not absorb in his own the very personality of his 
sovereign, but rather, to use his own language, was 
the most passionately devoted of subjects and serv- 
ants. In fine, Eichelieu existed as Minister only by 
the will of Louis; and it is to the glory of that 
monarch that he never dismissed him whom a recal- 
citrant and jealous nobility, a cowardly and treach- 
erous brother, and an unscrupulous and soulless 
mother, united in opposing even to the death. Each 
was the complement of the other; and the reign of 
Louis XIII. may well be called that of Eichelieu, 
the ministry of Eichelieu that of Louis XIII. 

The death of this so long misunderstood monarch 
occurred on May 14, 1643, and it was one befitting 
a sovereign whose devotion to Our Lady had caused 
him to institute as the national feast of France the 



196 Louis XIII. as He Was. 

festival of her glorious Assumption.* The great 
Protestant jurisconsult, Grotius, then Swedish am- 
bassador to the French court, wrote of the edifying 
scene: *'I do not believe that we can find an in- 
stance of any king — nay, of any Christian — dispos- 
ing himself for death with greater piety. " Well 
may Cardinal Mazarin have written, during the 
King's illness, to the Cardinal-Archbishop of Lyons, 
a brother of the great Minister, his predecessor: 

"I would be wanting in gratitude were I wanting 
in sadness. The beautiful and wonderful circum- 
stances attending the King's illness increase this 
sentiment, although in some sense they lessen it; 
and I can not contemplate them without a kind of 
pleasure, seeing as I do that they must add to his 
glory. Nor can I behold them without a fuller 
realization of the extent of our imminent loss. In 
fact, it is impossible to imagine a greater force of 
soul in so much weakness of body than his Majesty 
has shown. No one in his condition could have 
arranged his affairs more clearly or more judi- 
ciously. No one could regard death more calmly, 
or show more resignation to the will of God. In a 
word, if Providence has decreed that this malady 
shall take the King from us, we shall be able to say 
that no career was ever more Christianly, more 
charitably or more bravely fulfilled." 



* "L'idee d'une belle mort ou d'une mort Chretienne dans 
le r6cit de la fin heureuse de Louis XIII., surnomme' le Juste, 
roi de France et de Navarre, tire" des M^moires de feu Jacques 
Dinet, son confesseur, etc.," in the Lib. Nat., cited by Bar- 
th^lemy, loc. cit. 



THE NATURE OF TASSO'S IMPRISON- 
MENT. 

That Torquato Tasso was insane during a long 
period of his life, and that he was subjected to re- 
straint, although with all due consideration, is ev- 
ident from his own letters. But that he was a 
victim of unfortunate love and of princely tyranny, 
and imprisoned in the ordinary sense of the term, 
is untrue.* Credulous and perhaps sympathetic 
travellers yet continue to fee the lachrymose cicerone 
who shows them the Ferrarese dungeon, in which 
the poet is said to have alternately raved and lan- 
guished. Byron, Lamartine, and many other roman- 
ticists — sincere and affected, — have fixed their 
autographs on the walls of the cell, in sign of 
fraternal commiseration. The municipal authorities, 
with a prudent desire to add to the attractions of 
their city, yet allowed the inscription ' 'Entrance to 
the Prison of Torquato Tasso" to entice the open- 
mouthed tourist of average calibre. Nevertheless, 
the confinement of Tasso was scarcely more of an 
imprisonment than that of Galileo, and one can 
account for the obstinate hold of the tradition only 



* Cf. Valery, "Curiosity et Anecdotes Italiennes," Paris, 
1842. 

197 



198 The Nature of Tasso^s Imprisonment. 

in the words of the poet — that man is ice for truth, 
but fire for lies.* 

None of the educated inhabitants of Ferrara 
believe the aforesaid prison to have been occupied 
by Tasso during his confinement in their city. 
How would it have been possible, they ask, for 
a man of gigantic stature, such as Tasso was, 
to have dwelt for several years in quarters so 
restricted, and yet to have been able to engage 
successfully in literary labor? The dungeon in 
question is only six feet high, and yet it is cer- 
tain that during his restraint the poet revised 
his great work, and composed, among others, his 
several philosophical Dialogues. Madame de Stael, 
so given to commiserating illustrious misfortune, 
remarks Barthelemy, did not credit the story. 
Goethe, says Ampere, f made many careful re- 
searches on this subject, and concluded that the 
alleged dungeon of the poet is not authentic. 
Again, none of the important personages, notably 
Scipio Gonzaga, who visited Tasso in his time 
of trouble, allude to any physical inconvenience 
entailed or aggravated by the condition of his 
domicile. As to the poet's treatment by his cus- 
todians, it could not have been very severe, since 
his only important complaint was that he did 



* "L'homme est de glace aux ve>it£s, 
II est de feu pour le mensonge." 
t In a letter from Weimar, May 9, 1827. 



The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment. 199 

"not have sufficient fine sugar for the morrow's 
salad;" and that his nightcaps were less elegant 
and dainty than those he had hitherto worn.* 

At the age of twenty-two Tasso was received 
into the magnificent court of Alfonso d'Este, Duke 
of Ferrara, to whose brother, the Cardinal Louis, 
he had already dedicated his "Kinaldo." He 
soon rose to great favor. The Duke appointed 
him to the chair of geometry in the University, 
and entrusted him with the continuation of the 
"History of the House of Este," begun by the 
famous Pigna, his late secretary. It is said that 
he was beloved by Eleonora, the Duke's sister. 
"Is it possible," asks Cantu, "that envy should 
not pursue him, and therefore also calumny? 
More than alive to his own merits, he fancied 
that the lackeys insulted him, and that he was op- 
posed in his affections. Mistrust became habit- 
ual to him. He imagined that his letters were 
intercepted and that his desk was rifled. Scipio 
Gonzaga holds reunions of his friends, and he 
suspects that they meet in order to ridicule his 
poetry; he distrusts Count Tassoni, who welcomes 
him to Modena ; he doubts the sincerity of Cardi- 
nal dei Medici, who offers him protection if the 
Duke should ever abandon him. The servants 
laugh at his absurdities, while the courtiers take 
pleasure in compassionating one whose genius mor- 



* Unedited Letters, Nos. 79 and 83. 



200 The Nature of Tasso' s Imprisonment. 

tifies themselves. Then he cuffs them all, even 
uses his dagger, and bursts into tirades against 
the Duke."* 1 ' 

Convinced of the poet's insanity, Alfonso placed 
him under medical care, and forbade him to write. 
But Tasso imagined all sorts of dangers, and fled 
in disguise to Naples, then to Venice, Padua, f and 
other places. Finally worse befell him. Some time 
before he had applied to the Inquisitor at Bologna, 
and accused himself of doubts concerning the In- 
carnation; and the reply had been : "Sick man, go 
in peace." Now he again felt these scruples, and 
having once more applied to the Holy Office, was 
dismissed with encouragement. But the unfortu- 
nate continued to be a burden to himself and his 
friends; and at length the Duke, regarding his 
reason as irretrievably lost, consigned him to the 
Hospital of St Anna, in March, 1579. 

Few men have talked more about themselves 
than Tasso ; but he does not reveal the real secret 
of his troubles, although he plainly admits that 



* "Illustri Italiani," vol. i, p. 414. Milan, 1879. 

f The famous General, Sforza Pallavicino, happened to be 
in Padua during Tasso's visit, and expressed a desire to meet 
him. When Tasso waited upon him, accompanied by four 
friends, Pallavicino drew a chair near to himself (he was suf- 
fering from gout) , and begged the poet to be seated. Tasso 
ran out of the room, and afterward excused himself to his 
companions, saying, "We must sometimes teach politeness to 
these people. Why did the man show that attention only 
to me?" 



The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment. 201 

he was at one time crazy . Writing on December 
25, 1581, to Cattaneo, he says: "One of my letters 
has disappeared, and I think that a goblin has 
taken it; . . . and this is one of the wonders that 
I have seen in this hospital. . . . But amid all 
these terrors I have seen in the air the image of 
the glorious Virgin with her Son in her arms. . . . 
And although these may be fancies — for I am a 
lunatic, and am troubled nearly always by infinite 
melancholy and by various phantasms, — by the grace 
of God I yield no consent to these things. . . . 
If I mistake not, my lunacy was caused about three 
years ago, by certain sweets I had eaten. . . . My 
disease is so strange that it might deceive a physician, 
and hence I deem it the work of a magician ; and it 
would be a mercy to take me from this place, in 
which enchanters are allowed to exercise such power 
over me. ... I must tell you something more 
about this goblin. The little thief has stolen from 
me I know not how much money. . . . He upsets 
my books, opens my boxes, and steals my keys." 
The unfortunate tried many remedies. Endeav- 
oring to discover why he was so "persecuted," 
he examines every accusation which could, rightly 
or wrongly, be brought against him, and then 
he turns to God and excuses himself for infidelity. 
"Both within and without I am infected with the 
vices of the flesh and the darkness of the world ; 
and I have thought of Thee in the same way in 
which I used to think of the ideas of Plato or of 



202 The Nature of Tasso^s Imprisonment. 

the atoms of Democritus, and such like matters of 
the philosophers, which are rather creatures of their 
fancy than of Thy hands. ... I have doubted 
whether Thou didst create the world, or whether it 
was independent of Thee from all eternity ; whether 
Thou hast given to man an immortal soul, and 
whether Thou didst descend to earth in order to put 
on our humanity. . . . And yet it pained me to 
doubt, and I would have compelled my intellect to 
believe of Thee what our Holy Church believes. . . . 
I confessed and communicated as Thy Roman 
Church commands, . . . and I consoled myself 
with the belief that Thou wouldst pardon the un- 
belief of those whose deficiency was not encouraged 
by obstinacy or malignity. . . . Thou knowest 
how I have ever abhorred the name of Lutheran or 
heretic as a pestiferous thing." 

It was while he was thus afflicted that Tasso re- 
ceived a shock which none but an author can ap- 
preciate. He was just about to revise and give the 
finishing touches to his "Jerusalem Delivered" when 
he learned that the poem had appeared in Venice 
(1580), and that it was by no means what he had 
intended it should be ere it should be given to the 
public. The negligence of a friend had permitted a 
speculator to obtain an original draft of the work; 
and now the world was criticising, as by the author 
of the admired "Binaldo," a poem filled with merely 
tentative and temporary expressions, and disorted, 
perhaps, by innumerable lacunae. To make the mat- 



The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment. 203 

ter worse, the presses of all Italy and of France 
soon multiplied editions of this imperfect publica- 
tion ; for the impatience to read anything new by 
Tasso was universal. The famous Academy of the 
Crusca, which then, as for a long time since, ex- 
ercised an almost tyrannical influence in literary 
matters, and which, Cantu somewhat bitterly says, 
"like all Acadamies, availed itself of the dead, who 
inspire no jealousy to mortify the living," was 
very severe on the new poem. This and other 
criticisms, especially one by Leonardo Salviati, of 
course irritated the unsettled mind of Tasso ; but 
a visit to Marfisia d'Este, Princess of Massa, which 
the Duke allowed him to make during the summer, 
greatly restored him. 

Manfredi, another famous poet, visited Tasso in 
1583, and submitted for his judgment his own trag- 
edy of "Semiramis." He found the invalid in fair 
mental condition. Many other persons of note also 
visited our poet, among whom the most acceptable 
appears to have been the Benedictine lyric writer, 
Angelo Grillo, who returned again and again to pass 
entire days with his friend. Meanwhile all Europe 
was compassionating Tasso's misfortune; from all 
quarters he received verbal encouragement, and in 
many instances substantial tokens of sympathy in 
the shape of valuable presents. Many believed that 
freedom would contribute to his restoration more 
than confinement; and hence we find requests to 
Duke Alfonso from Popes Gregory XIII. and Six- 



204 The Mature of Tasso' s Imprisonment. 

tus V., from the Cardinal Albert of Austria, the 
Emperor Rudolph, the Grand-Duke of Tuscany 
and his consort, the Duke of Urbino, the Duchess 
of Mantua, and the municipality of Bergamo, for 
his release. On July 6, 1586, Alfonso delivered 
him to the care of the Prince of Mantua, and he 
was once again a free man. Cardinal di Gonzaga 
gave him hospitality in his own palace at Rome, 
and the Pope assigned him a yearly revenue of two 
hundred golden scudi. Genoa invited him to ex- 
plain Aristotle in her University, assigning him 
four hundred scudi as regular salary, and as much 
more in perquisites. But nothing could induce 
Tasso to lead a regular life : he wandered here and 
there, until finally he sought an asylum in the hos- 
pital of the Bergamaschi in Rome. Often he suf- 
fered from want of ready money, and frequent 
were his applications to the pawnshops.* 

In 1594 our poet learned that Pope Clement 
VIII., at the instance of his nephew, the Cardinal 
Aldobrandini, had decreed him the honors of a 
triumph at the Capitol. "They are preparing my 
coffin," he replied; but as no poet would dream of 
declining the laureate, he set out for the Eternal 
City. On the way from Naples, where he had been 



* There is yet extant a receipt as follows: "I the under- 
signed declare that I have received from Abraham Levi the 
sum of twenty-five lire, for which he holds in pledge one of 
my father's swords, six shirts, four bed-sheets, and two towels. 
March 2, 1570. Torquato Tasso." 



The Nature of Tasso' s Imprisonment. 205 

residing for some time, he stopped three days with 
his beloved Benedictines of Montecasino. "If mis- 
fortune come to you," said the abbot, "come to us. 
This monastery is used to giving hospitality to the 
unhappy. " Tasso answered: "I go to Eome to be 
crowned laureate on the Capitol, taking as com- 
panions of my triumph sickness and poverty. 
However, I go willingly ; for I love the Eternal City 
as the centre of the faith. My refuge has always 
been the Church, — the Church, my mother, more 
tender than any mother." 

Arriving at the gates of the Catholic metropolis, 
Tasso found an immense multitude — prelates, nobles, 
knights, and citizens — waiting to salute him and 
to escort him to the Vatican. The Cardinal Aldo- 
brandini took him in his own carriage to the palace, 
where the Pontiff welcomed him, saying, "We are 
about to confer upon you the crown of laurel, which 
you will honor, whereas hitherto it has honored those 
who have worn it." His reception over, his cardi- 
nal protector would have taken Tasso to his own 
palace to* wait for the coronation ceremonies; but 
the poet felt that his end was drawing near, and 
begged to be allowed to lodge in the Hieronymite 
convent of Sant' Onofrio on the Janiculum. 

In this home of peace, and often reposing under 
the branches of the oak which, only a few days 
before,* had sheltered St. Philip Neri and his class 
of little Romans, the wearied genius hearkened to 



* St. Philip died just one month before Tasso. 



206 The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment, 

the gentle Hieronymites as they prepared him for 
his last journey. Toward the end he wrote to a 
friend : "The world has so far conquered as to lead 
me, a beggar, to the grave; whereas I had thought 
to have had some profit from that glory which, in 
spite of those who wish it not, will attend my writ- 
ings.' ' He made a holy death, in his fifty-second 
year, on April 25, 1595. During his magnificent 
funeral ceremonies, which were attended by the en- 
tire pontifical court, the laurel crown was placed on 
his brow. The monument which Cardinal Aldobran- 
dini had designed to erect over the remains of his 
protege was, for some reason, never undertaken; 
but Cardinal Bevilacqua, of Ferrara, disinterred 
them, and placed them in a small mausoleum in 
Sant' Onofrio. Afterward the late Pontiff, Pius 
IX., at his private expense, erected a magnificent 
monument, and placed the remains therein (1857), 
in a beautifully renovated chapel of the same 
church. 



WICKED VENICE. 

To the average mind the history of Venice is a 
bloody and lurid melodrama. Dungeons under the 
canals, cells exposed to the fury of an almost tor- 
rid sun, hidden doors ever menacing an egress of 
spies and assassins, virtue and valor ever succumbing 
to dagger or to poison ; and all these under the 
segis of a Government proclaiming itself Christian 
and popular. 

Such is the picture arising before him who reads 
the current tales of Venice, or who gazes on a 
stage representation of Venetian story. Until the 
nineteenth century had dawned, this idea of Venice 
was mainly one of English and Protestant creation. 
Heretical hatred and commercial rivalry had com- 
bined to foster prejudice against that Catholic re- 
public, which had been for centuries the wealthiest 
among the great states of Europe. But with our 
century came the necessity, on the part of France, 
of justifying a great national crime. Fair Venice 
lay a corpse at the feet of the French revolutionary 
tiger, and it was but natural that her murderers 
should insist that she had merited her fate. Be- 
hold, then, French writers of serious calibre heaping 
obloquy on the memory of the Queen of the Adri- 
atic ! Of course German authors swelled the cho- 
rus, for a German power had profited by the crime 

207 



208 Wicked Venice. 

of France; and a trade in peoples had to be justi- 
fied, if nothing else would do it, by the supposed 
vileness of the bartered. Nearly universal, there- 
fore, has been the cry against Venetian cruelty, dis- 
honesty, tyranny, and malignant cunning. 

One of the most noted illustrations of the 
mysteries of Venice is the drama of "Angelo," 
by M. Victor Hugo. The poet had used the 
poison and daggers of the Ten, the secret pas- 
sages, loathsome dungeons, etc., to the utmost; 
and certain critics ventured to challenge the 
probability of his mise en scene. In one of the 
notes of his published drama, Hugo appealed to 
the authority of Count Daru, the historian of 
the First Empire, and to the "Statutes of the 
State Inquisition' 5 * of Venice, furnished by that 



* The "Inquisizione di Stato"of Venice must not be con- 
founded with either the Roman (Holy Office) or the Spanish 
Inquisition. The Roman was an ecclesiastical tribunal, the 
Spanish a royal one; but both took cognizance of heresies and 
similar crimes. The Venetian tribunal, made permanent in 
1454, was purely political, and was composed of three persons 
— two chosen from the Ten, and one from the council of the 
doge. Its jurisdiction was universal, not even the doge being 
excepted. Originally it was called the "Inquisizione dei 
Dieci," but in 1610 the style was changed to that of "Inquisi- 
zione di Stato." Its power was unlimited in all affairs of 
state and of police. It disposed of the treasury, gave instruc- 
tion to ambassadors, etc., and on occasion deposed the doge. 
When, however, it undertook to judge the Doge Marino Fa- 
liero, it called a giunta of twenty nobles, which body remained 
permanent until 1582. 



Wicked Venice. 209 

writer. We give a synopsis of these statutes, 
which, according to Daru, bear the date of June 
12, 1454: 

In the sixteenth it is decreed that when the tri- 
bunal deems it necessary to put any one to death, 
the execution must not be public ; the condemned 
must, if possible, be drowned in the Canal of the 
Orphans {Canal Orfano). The twenty-eighth es- 
tablishes that if any Venetian noble reveals that 
he has been corruptly approached by a foreign am- 
bassador, he shall be authorized to enter into the 
proposed relations ; when the affair has culminated, 
the intermediary agent is to be drowned, providing, 
however, that he be not the ambassador himself or 
some person generally known. The fortieth pro- 
vides for the institution of spies, not only in the 
capital, but in all the principal cities of the republic. 
These agents will report in person to the tribunal, 
twice a year, as to the conduct of the officers in their 
respective districts. In a supplement to the statutes, 
provision is made to the effect that any one who so 
talks as to promise public disturbance, shall be 
warned; if he continues the practice, he may be 
drowned. The twenty-eighth provision is for rid- 
ding the state of any prisoner whom it may be im- 
politic to punish openly. A jailer is to feign to 
sympathize with him, and, having previously ad- 
ministered to him a slow and untraceable poison, 
he must allow the victim to escape. 



210 Wicked Venice. 

Daru tells us that he found these statutes, hith- 
erto unknown,* in the Eoyal Library of Paris. 
They were bound in a quarto volume, together 
with another work which bore the title, "Opinion 
of Father Paul, Servite, Councillor of State, as to 
the best manner of governing the Venetian Repub- 
lic, both as to internal and external affairs, that it 
may enjoy perpetual prosperity." The Servite 
priest was no other than Paul Sarpi, the celebrated 
adversary of the Holy See whenever its temporal 
claims came into collision with the pretensions of 
Venice ; and Daru, who was naturally of the opinion 
that Sarpi was to be revered as an authority, 
gladly embraced the idea that the juxtaposition of 
the statutes, in one volume, with the advice on 
Venetian government, was a proof that the Servite 
had also published the statutes. 

We would be willing to accept the authority of 
Sarpi in this matter, but we are forced to yield to 
the arguments which show that he was the author 
of neither one of the works enclosed in Daru's 
treasure-trove. | But, granting the value of Sarpi 
in the premises, there are several good reasons for 
rejecting these statutes as unauthentic. In the first 
place, how is it that no investigator has ever found 



* "I know of no writer," says Daru, "even among the 
Venetians, who has spoken of these statutes." See "Histoire 
de la Republique de Venice," edit. 1821, vol. vi, p. 385. 

t See an excellent article in the British Review for October, 
1877, p. 337. The falsity of these statutes, and of many of 
Daru's assertions concerning Venice, was perfectly demon- 
strated by Count Tiepolo in his "Discorsisulla Storia Veneta," 
Udine, 1828. 



Wicked Venice. 211 

any allusion to these provisions in any document of 
an age anterior to Daru's manuscript? According 
to the very constitution of the Venetian Govern- 
ment, such measures could not have been decreed 
without the sanction of the Great Council, and 
after having passed through all the formalities of 
registration in the archives of the Ten. And no 
search has yet discovered them. 

Again, the alleged statutes are full of errors 
such as no Venetian jurisconsult of the fifteenth 
century could have committed. Thus, at that pe- 
riod all the judicial and official documents of the 
republic were drawn up in Latin, whereas these 
alleged statutes are couched in the Venetian 
dialect, which did not come into vogue until a 
century afterward. Again, these decrees are pro- 
nounced in the name of the ' 'State Inquisitors," 
a title not given to these magistrates before 1610. 
Finally, in these ordinances the Inquisitors assert 
jurisdiction over the prisoners in the Piombi, 
whereas these apartments were not used as prisons 
until 1594. These statutes, therefore, are apocry- 
phal; and, so far as they are the foundation of the 
accusations against Venice, we must banish from 
our minds all the pictures which have been designed 
to represent the Venetian legislature as a congrega- 
tion of demons, rather than an assembly of grave 
and reverend lords. 

How do the calumniators of Venice wish us to 
account for the internal peace which reigned in 



212 Wicked Venice. 

the republic for so many centuries? We find no 
rebellions either at home or in the colonies; and 
this in spite of frequent famines, plagues, wars, 
and excommunications. Had such a cancer as the 
foes of Venice suppose existed, and in the very 
heart of the nation, devouring by degrees every 
vestige of liberty and destroying all sense of 
security, would the republic have remained so uni- 
formly contented and prosperous? It was in 1468, 
fifteen years after the supposed statutes had been 
put in force, that the illustrious Cardinal Bessarion, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, when presenting his 
valuable library to the republic, thus expressed 
himself: "What country offers one so sure a refuge 
as yours, governed by equity, integrity, and wis- 
dom ? Here virtue, moderation, gravity, justice and 
good faith have fixed their abode. Here power, 
even though great and extensive, is as just as 
gentle. Here the wise govern, the good command 
the perverse, and particular interests are ever sac- 
rificed to the general welfare." 

Such reflections as these caused Yalery (one of 
the most noted of French travellers, and better 
acquainted with Italy than most foreigners are) to 
write in 1838: "I have abandoned my prejudices 
concerning the Venetian Inquisitors, and I did 
so with great satisfaction ; for it is refreshing to 
find at least fewer oppressors in history. It is to 
be regretted that an enlightened historian like Daru 
should have believed in the pretended statutes of 



Wicked Venice. 213 

the ' State Inquisition,' which he found in manu- 
script in the Royal Library, and which are regarded 
by all educated Venetians as apocryphal and as fab- 
ricated by an ignorant enemy of the republic. The 
State Inquisitors were guardians of the laws, and 
silent tribunes dear to the people. The Inquisitors 
defended the people against the excesses of aristo- 
cratic power." * 

It has been remarked that modern Venetians 
seem to have no fear of any thorough investigations 
into the early history of their country. They rather 
court it, as is evidenced by the zeal with which they 
began, immediately after the close of the Austrian 
domination, to publish the most important treasures 
of their hitherto impenetrable archives. Among 
these is a collection of documents referring to the 
history of the palace of the doge. It contains the 
minutes of the sittings of the Council of Ten from 
1254 to 1600 ; and we can not find in it the least 
trace of, for instance, the drownings said to have 
been decreed in the alleged statutes. As well look 
for indication of some burning at the stake in 
Venice — in that country which, alone among all 
European lands, never witnessed that horror. As 
to the name of the Canal Orfano, in which so many 
victims of a wicked statecraft are said to have been 
remorselessly drowned, that designation is not 
necessarily derived from the fact of so many 



* "Voyage en Italie," vol. i, p. 314. 



214 Wicked Venice. 

orphans having been made in it by order of the 
Inquisitors; for modern Venetians believe that 
this canal was so called centuries before the State 
Inquisition came into existence. 

Much has been said about the convenient oppor- 
tunity afforded to malignity by the provision of a 
receptacle for anonymous denunciations to the In- 
quisitors. Certainly there was no more connection 
between this "Lion's Mouth" and tyranny, than 
there is between tyranny and the P. O. boxes hang- 
ing from our lamp-posts. And as to the anonymous 
letters addressed to the Inquisitors, a law of 1387 
decreed that they should be immediately burned. 
And when, toward the end of the sixteenth century, 
such demonstrations were sometimes admitted, no 
proceedings could be taken against the accused 
without a vote of four-fifths of the Council. And 
it is to be noted that the precautions taken against 
false testimony and false accusations were greater 
in Venice than in any other land. 

It has been said that the main reservoir was so 
situated in the precincts of the ducal palace that the 
authorities could at once quell a rebellion by shutting 
off the supply of water. But besides the two mag- 
nificent reservoirs in the palace court, there were 
many others in other places, and nearly every pri- 
vate house had its own well or cistern. Documents 
as old as 1303 speak of a board of magistrates simi- 
lar to our aqueduct commissioners, whose first duty 
was to see that every new house was supplied with 
a well. 



Wicked Venice. 215 

And now a word on the Piombi, those cells of 
alleged torture in the uppermost story of the ducal 
palace, immediately under the leaden roof. It will 
be interesting to quote the testimony of Daniel 
Manin, the patriotic dictator during the Venetian 
revolution of 1848, concerning these supposed inven- 
tions of human malignity. A Parisian critic having 
occasion to review a work which bemoaned the 
"mysteries of Venice," and dilated pitifully on the 
"Bridge of Sighs," on the "horrible Piombi," etc., 
he showed his article to the patriot. Having read 
it, Manin thus addressed him : "Can it be possible 
that you, an educated and serious man, believe these 
nonsensical yarns ? Do you still credit the tales of 
your nursery days ? I know these Piombi and these 
Pozzi; I have been confined therein, and I can assure 
you that they are by no means uncomfortable lodg- 
ings. Believe me when I say that all this talk about 
the cruelties of Venice is an old wife's tale." 

Then Manin showed his astonished friend how 
the Most Serene Eepublic could not have survived 
so gloriously for so many centuries had its govern- 
ment not been indulgent and popular.* In fact, to 
this day the Venetians preserve an affectionate re- 
membrance of that government ; and hence it was 
that they so gladly proclaimed and sustained their 
republic of 1848, whereas elsewhere the Italian 
movement was merely the work of a revolutionary 



* J. Morey, in the "Illustrations et Celebrit&s du XIXe 
Siecle," vol. v. Paris, 1884. 



216 Wicked Venice. 

faction. These Piombi could not have been gla- 
ciers in winter and furnaces in summer, when 
Howard, the great English prison reformer, avowed 
their healthfulness.* Again, it is not true that 
they were located immediately under the roof of 
the palace. Euskin carefully measured, the space 
between the prison cells and the roof, and he found 
it was in some places nine metres high, and in others 
never less than five.f 

Twelve years before the fall of the Venetian 
Eepublic the celebrated astronomer Lalande said 
of the State Inquisitors: "They are distinguished 
more for their wisdom than for talent. They are 
chosen from among men whose age guarantees free- 
dom from passion and from the dangers of prejudice 
or of corruption. Earely indeed is there any abuse 
of the absolute powers confided to them." % The 
reader will remember that this praise comes from a 
"philosopher." The eminent historian Botta says : 
"Venice was without serious trouble for many cen- 
turies. She was the object of attack for the most 
powerful nations — the Turks, the Germans, and 
the French. She was in the road of barbarous 
conquerors, and in the midst of revolutions of the 



* "State of the prisons in England and Wales, with pre- 
liminary-observations and an account of some foreign prisons." 
London, 1777. 

t "Stones of Venice," vol. ii, p. 293; note. London, 1852. 

% "Voyage en Italie, Contenant l'Histoire et les Anecdotes 
les plus Siugulieres de l'ltalie." Paris, 1786. 



Wicked Venice. 217 

peoples. Yet she came safe and sound from every 
political tempest; and such was the perfection of 
her ancient laws, so deep had struck the roots given 
them by time, that she never needed to change their 
character. It is my firm conviction that there has 
never existed a wiser government than that of Ven- 
ice, whether we consider its own preservation or the 
happiness of its subjects. For this reason Venice 
never had any dangerous factions in her bosom, and 
for the same reason she never entertained any fear 
of new ideas. ... I do not know whether pity or 
indignation should be felt for those who declaim 
so fiercely against the Inquisition of Venice, and 
who affect to regard the existence of that tribunal 
as a justification for the death inflicted on the an- 
cient and sacred republic." * 

The chief reason for the hostility displayed by so 
many moderns toward the memory of the Venetian 
Republic is the fact that it was pre-eminently "cleri- 
cal," as it is the "liberal" fashion nowadays to style 
everything not positively hostile to the Catholic 
Church. According to the clamorous philosophists 
of the liberal school, "clericalism" is a scoffing at 
reason, a denial of the sun's light, a cursing of lib- 
erty, an exaltation of despotism, a subordination of 
all civil power to a theocracy, an ignoring of all the 
conquests of modern science, a trampling on human 
dignity; in fine — and this sums up all the iniquities 
of "clericalism" — it is a return to the Cimmerian 



'Storia d'ltalia da 1789 a 1814." Florence, 1816. 



218 Wicked Venice. 

darkness of the Middle Age. Melancholy indeed 
to a radical is the spectacle furnished by a capital 
city panting under the incubus of two hundred 
churches, thirty religious establishments for men, 
thirty-five nunneries, and confraternities innumer- 
able. And, sadder still to relate, every one of these 
monuments of Venetian religious devotion owed its 
origin to some vow in recognition of a favor ob- 
tained from God. 

Well did the republic merit the title of Very 
Christian, given to it by Pope Honorius in the 
seventh century, the third of its existence. Thirty- 
nine times in the year the capital beheld the doge 
and senate proceeding in full state, gran gala, to 
some church,* in accordance with some vow made 
on an occasion of peril to the state. Foreign ob- 
servers were always edified by the piety manifested 
in the accomplishment of this duty. Commines 
wrote in 1494: "Venice is the most glorious city I 
have ever seen, and it is the most wisely governed. 
The worship of God is conducted here more wor- 
thily than elsewhere ; and although the Venetians 
may have their faults, I believe that God helps 
them on account of their reverence for the Church, "f 

And when the republic was twelve centuries old, 
this spirit was as strong as when the dubious pros- 



* The ceremonies of Holy Week were especially splendid. 
Saint-Didier, in his "La Ville et Repuhlique de Venice," 
written in 1679, says of the illuminations in Venice on Good 
Friday night that then the city was wont to consume more 
white wax than was used in all the rest of Italy in a year. 

f "Memoires," b. vii, ch. 8, at year 1494. 



Wicked Venice. 219 

perity of its infancy drew it to the altars of God. 
Albrizzi wrote in 1771: "The most noteworthy 
characteristic of this august republic is its firm and 
inviolable attachment to the Catholic Church. The 
commanders of her armies, the governors of her 
fortresses, in their wars with the Turks, have de- 
fended the faith with their blood, and often amid 
most cruel tortures. In most critical times this 
wise government has paid the greatest attention to 
a preservation of the faith of Jesus Christ in its 
purity. . . . The same zeal is shown to-day. 
. . . The most conspicuous monuments of Venice 
prove the piety of its government at every period 
of its existence. The souvenir of the many victo- 
ries of Venice is renewed every year by some reli- 
gious ceremony, performed with as much majesty as 
appropriateness. The doge, at the head of the 
senate, fulfills this pious duty. . . . Hence we 
may say that the Venetians are very assiduous in 
the practice of their religious duties ; for on every 
feast-day, and especially on the festivals of the Holy 
Virgin, their protectress,* the churches are filled 
with people of every class and condition, all wrapped 
in recollection. "f 

Like other countries, Venice passed through 
many struggles with the Holy See, but these were 
never concerning matters of faith. Even during 



* The Feast of the Annunciation is the anniversary of the 
birth of the capita] city. Hence on the pavement of the 
Church of Santa Maria dell a Santa we read : " Uncle origo, incle 
salus." 

f II Forestiere Illuminato della Citta di Venezia." Venice, 
1771. 



220 Wicked Venice. 

her terrible alienation from Rome in the pontificate 
of Paul V., the interdict launched by that Pontiff 
did not throw her, as the Reformers predicted, into 
the ranks of Protestantism. How could such a 
defection have been possible, demands Cantu, 
"when Venice was thoroughly Catholic? Her 
origin, her patrons, her national festivals, the fine 
arts, all proclaimed her such. . . . And," he con- 
tinues, "let any person of judgment tell us whether 
that religion was likely to perish which was just 
then erecting so many sumptuous churches. When 
the public spirit was so identified with Catholicism, 
could an eminently conservative government have 
dreamed of so radical a revolution? We have 
studied many documents concerning the interdict 
of Venice, and while we have found much boldness 
and much discontent, we have always discerned 
Christian submission and a desire for reconcilia- 
tion."* 

But this Christian spirit is displeasing to the lib- 
erals of our day, and hence they have re-echoed the 
accusations made against Venice by Bonaparte, the 
chief author of that great crime by which the 
ancient republic was obliterated from the list of 
nationalities. Let the reader judge whether these 
charges were true ; whether among all governments, 
that one in which equality before the law most 
flourished, that one which was the most patriotic in 
all Christendom, and that one which lived the long- 
est, was precisely the one which all good people 
should the most detest. 

* "Gli Eretici d'ltalia," vol. iii, p. 188. Turin, 1866. 



THE LAST WORD ON THE MASSACRE 
OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY. 

"Excidat ilia dies cevo, nee postera credant 
scecula. — Let this day be lost from time, and pos- 
terity ignore the event." Whether these words 
of Statius were applied to this fatal day by the 
Chancellor de l'Hopital, as Voltaire asserts, or by 
the President de Thou, as some contend, no Cath- 
olic will refuse to re-echo them ; but, if well in- 
formed, he will not deem himself obliged to add 
with the poet, 6i Nos eerie laceamus." And never- 
theless, it is comparatively but a short time since 
Catholic polemics essayed to answer the allegations 
of Protestant writers concerning this event, so fear- 
ful were they lest they might be suspected of a 
wish to apologize for a horrible crime. We hear 
much of La Barthelemy , but nothing of La Michelade, 
that frightful massacre at Ntmes on St. Michael's 
Day of 1567, when the Protestants anticipated by 
more than two centuries the horrors of the Carmes 
of the Abbaye (September 2, 1792). Now we pro- 
pose to demonstrate, firstly, that religion had nothing 
to do with this massacre; secondly, that it was a 
matter of mere worldly policy; thirdly, that it was 
not intended that it should extend beyond Paris; 
fourthly, that it was not long premeditated, but 

221 



222 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 

was the effect of impulse ; and fifthly, that the num- 
ber of its victims has been enormously exaggerated. 



I. 

Religion had nothing to do with this massacre. 
In this matter historians have erred in espousing 
the cause of either Protestants or Catholics ; to 
use the words of Cantu, "Varillas and Voltaire, 
equally unjust, have provoked the judgment of 
impartial posterity, which weighs them in the 
same scale, and which sees on both sides swords 
dripping with blood, recognizing in this deadly 
struggle not the crimes of a sect or the follies 
of a court or the instigations of fanaticism, but 
the constant passions of humanity." In the first 
place, one would be led to suspect that zeal 
for the Catholic faith was not the motive for 
the Barthelemy, from the fact that many Cath- 
olics were numbered among the victims, having 
succumbed to personal hate or to avarice. "The 
possession of wealth," says Mezeray, "an envied 
position, or the existence of greedy heirs, stamped 
a man as a Huguenot." The governor of Bor- 
deaux systematically ransomed wealthy Catholics 
as well as Protestants. At Bourges a priest 
was murdered; at La Charite, the wife of a 
Captain Landas; at Vic, the governor; at Paris, 
Bertrand de Villemer, maitre des requetes, and 
John Rouillard, a canon of Notre-Dame. Again, 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 223 

the characters of Catherine dei Medici and her 
son, Charles IX., were not those of zealots for the 
faith ; a critical and impartial historian* has been 
obliged to admit that if it had become necessary 
for the recovery of power, they would have de- 
clared themselves Protestants. But there is more 
than mere suspicion to justify our assertion. We 
know, from the very " Marty rology" of the Calvin- 
ists, what motive actuated the murderers. They 
would show the corpses of their victims, saying, 
6 'These are they who would have killed the king." 
And "the courtiers laughed exultantly, saying that 
at length the war was ended, and they could live in 
peace." The same author tells us that after the 
massacre, "the parliament of Toulouse published 
the will of the king that no one should molest those 
of the religion, but should rather favor them;" 



* Cantu, "Storia Universale," b. xv, Note O. "Catherine 
dei Medici, a woman on whom weighs all the hatred of the 
French, who saw incarnated in her Italian cunning and feroc- 
ity, calculated corruption, cold cruelty, and an egotistic policy, 
had been raised among the factions of Tuscany; married for 
policy, unloved by a husband who preferred his mistress to 
her; suddenly exalted above her long debasement; beautiful, 
majestic, in the vigor of life; instructed by misfortune, irri- 
tated by humiliation; absolutely ruling, yet loved by her 
children; unequalled in the art of fascinating the souls of men. 
She did not study the good of a kingdom to which she was 
foreign, nor the preservation of a faith which she had not in 
her heart, but only her own power. Nevertheless, she pre- 
served France from falling to pieces, or from succumbing to a 
tyranny which afflicted Spain. She always wore the widow's 
weeds; and although she tolerated immorality in others, not 



224 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 

and we know that on August 26 a similar edict was 
issued in Paris. Again, Charles IX. needed no 
religious motive to render him furious against the 
Huguenots. They had plotted to kidnap him; they 
had drawn entire provinces into rebellion, and they 
had introduced foreign troops into France. 

But it is said that Roman cardinals prepared the 
massacre ; the names of Birague and De Retz are 
mentioned. The Roman purple is easily cleared of 
this stain. The former prelate was made a cardinal 
six, and the latter fifteen years after the Barthelemy. 
The poet Chenier, of the school of Voltaire, repre- 
sents, on the operatic stage, the Cardinal of Lor- 
raine as blessing the poniards destined for the 
massacre ; but at that time this prelate was in Rome, 
having been one of the conclave which had chosen 
a successor to St. Pius V. Again, much stress is 



even the calumnious BrantOme ever reproaches her on this 
score. She was so little hostile to the reformed doctrines that 
during her meals she often listened to Calvinist sermons. (See 
Letter of the Nuncio Santa Croce, November 13, 1561.) But 
since Philip II., the great enemy of France, was head of the 
Catholic party, France should be allied with the Protestants — 
a policy adopted, in fact, by the last few French monarchs. 
But the Calvinists ceased to be a school, and became a danger- 
ous faction; hence Catherine felt that she could save the 
country only by siding with the Catholic majority. Although 
she hated the Guises, she joined hands with them to supplant 
the constable Anne and Diana. The latter was banished; 
Anne went over to the Bourbons; the King of Navarre re- 
ceived a cool treatment which his weakness deserved, and the 
Guises obtained the highest posts." lb., c. 24, 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 225 

laid upon the conduct of the Eoman court when it 
heard of the catastrophe. Gregory XIII. pro- 
ceeded processionally to the church of St. Louis, 
and rendered thanks to Heaven ; he proclaimed a 
Jubilee, and struck medals commemorative of the 
event. The famous Latinist, Mureto, pronounced 
an encomium on the slaughter before the Sovereign 
Pontiff. But the words of Pope Gregory writing 
to the king in congratulation for his escape, the 
words of Mureto also, show that the Eoman court 
thanked Almighty God merely for the escape of the 
royal family from a Huguenot conspiracy. 

Finally, throughout France, in Paris itself, the 
Catholic masses acted on this occasion in a manner 
which showed that their religion was not a prime 
agent in the affair. On the very night of the 
massacre, Charles IX. sent orders to all the gov- 
ernors of provinces and of cities, to take measures 
to prevent any occurrences like those which had 
just stained the capital. At Lyons, as even the 
Calvinist Martyrology informs us, many of the 
Huguenots were sent for safety to the archiepiscopal 
prison and to the Celestine and Franciscan convents. 
And if we are told that some of those who were 
consigned to the archiepiscopal prison fell victims 
to their enemies, we reply, with the same Calvinist 
author, that this outrage was committed during the 
absence and without the knowledge of the gov- 
ernor; that on his return he put a stop to it, and 
offered a reward of a hundred scudi for the names 



226 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 

of the criminals. This author also tells us that "the 
Calvinists of Toulouse found safety in the con- 
vents." At Lisieux the bishop saved many, as the 
martyrologist admits;* and he also says that "the 
more peaceable Catholics saved forty out of sixty 
who had been seized at the town of Romans ; of the 
twenty others, thirteen were afterward freed, and 
only seven perished, they having many enemies, 
and having borne arms." Even at Nimes, where 
the Huguenots had twice massacred the Catholics in 
cold blood (in 1567 and 1569), the latter abstained 
from revenge. f Paris also furnished many exam- 
ples of compassion. The Calvinist historian, La 
Popeliniere, a contemporary author, records that 
"among the French nobles who distinguished them- 
selves in saving the lives of many of the confed- 
erates, the greatest good was effected by the dukes 
of Guise, Aumale, Biron, Bellievre. . . . When 
the people had been told that the Huguenots, in 
order to kill the king, had attacked his body-guards 
and killed over twenty, a further slaughter would 
have been perpetrated, had not many nobles, content 
with the death of the leaders, prevented it; even 
many Italians, armed and mounted, scoured the 
city and suburbs, and gathered many fortunates 



* Cf. also M. de Falloux, in the Correspondant of 1843, pp. 
166-16S. 

f Menard: "Histoire Civile, Eccl., et Lit., de Nimes;" vol. 
v, p. 9. 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew 's Day. 227 

into the security of their own houses." * In fine, 
instead of religion having caused this massacre, 
we may conclude with Count Alfred de Falloux 
that, considering the state of men's minds at that 
time, religion alone could have prevented it. "In- 
stead of a court full of intrigues and adulteries, sup- 
pose that then there was one influenced by the Gos- 
pel ; that the law of God guided the powerful ; that 
instead of a Catharine and a Charles IX., there had 
reigned a Blanche and a St. Louis ; in such a case 
let us ask our consciences whether this slaughter 
would have been possible." f 



n. 

The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day was an 
affair of worldly policy. The Huguenots had cer- 
tainly been guilty of high-treason. As to Coligny, 
the journal of his receipts and expenses, laid before 
the royal Council and the Parliament, and his other 
papers seized after his death, revealed deeds and 
projects which would have insured his capital con- 
demnation in any country of Christendom. Con- 
cerning these papers Bellievre said to the deputies 
of the Thirteen Cantons: "The king learned from 
them that the admiral had established, in sixteen 



* "Histoire de France de 1550 jusqu'a 1557;" edit. 1581; b. 
xxix, p. 67. 

f Discourse at a scientific congress held at Angers in 1843. 



228 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 

provinces, governors, military commanders, and a 
number of counsellors charged with the task of 
keeping the people armed, and of assembling them 
together at his first sign." Charles IX. wrote to 
Schomberg,his ambassador to Germ any, that Coligny 
had more power, "and was better obeyed by those of 
the new religion than I was. By the great authority 
he had usurped over them, he could raise them in 
arms against me whenever he wished, as indeed he 
often proved. Recently he ordered the new religion- 
ists to meet in arms at Melun, near Fontainbleau, 
where I was to be at that time, the third of August. 
He had arrogated so much power to himself that 
I could not call myself a king, but merely a ruler 
of part of my dominions. Therefore, since it 
has pleased God to deliver me from him, I may 
well thank Him for the just punishment He has 
inflicted upon the admiral and his accomplices. I 
could not tolerate him any longer, and I determined 
to give rein to a justice which was indeed extraor- 
dinary, and other than I would have wished, but 
which was necessary in the case of such a man."* 
Brantome, Tavannes, and Montluc, all courtiers of 
Charles, speak of his fear of Coligny ; and Bellievre 
says that "his Majesty told some of his servants, 
myself among the number, that when he found 
himself so threatened, his hair stood on end." Is 



* Villeroy: "M^moires Servant a l'Histoire de Notre 
Temps;" vol. iv. The letter to Schomberg is of September 
13, 1572. 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 229 

it likely that any monarch would tamely submit to 
such dictation as Coligny uttered? "Make war on 
Spain, sire, or we wage war against you."* Ta- 
vannes informs us that the king, speaking one day 
concerning the means at his disposal for a campaign 
in the Netherlands, said that one of his subjects 
(Coligny) had offered him ten thousand men for 
that purpose. Then Tavannes replied: "Sire, you 
ought to cut off the head of any subject who would 
use such language. How dare he offer you what is 
your own? This is a sign that he has corrupted 
these men; that he has gained them over to use 
them, one day, against your Majesty." 

Many Protestant writers are prone to dilate on 
the virtues of Coligny, but they have not freed him 
from the imputation of having directed the assassin's 
blow against Duke Francis of Guise. Not merely 
by the deposition of the wretched Poltrot, but by 
the very avowals of the admiral, we are led to 
regard the latter as the instigator of the crime. In 
a letter to the queen-mother, he admitted that "for 
the last five or six months he did not strongly" 
oppose those who showed a wish to kill the Duke; 
and he gave as a reason for his non-opposition, that 
certain persons had tried to kill himself. He did 



* Tavannes: "M^moires dermis Pan 1530 jusqu' a, Sa Mort 
en 1573, Dresses par Son Fils;" Paris, 1574. — The quotations 
that follow are taken from the "M^moires de Conde\ d^puis la 
Mort de Henri II., jusqu' au Commencement des Troubles en 
1565;" vol. iv, p. 303; Paris, 1741. 



230 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew* 's Day '. 

not name these persons in the course of his justifica- 
tion, but said that he "would indicate them at a fit- 
ting time." In his answers he admitted that "Poltrot 
told him that it would be easy to kill the Duke of 
Guise, but that he (Coligny) made no remark, 
because he deemed the matter frivolous;" in fact, 
he "said nothing as to whether he regarded the 
design as good or evil." In another letter to Cath- 
arine, he spoke of the death of the Duke as "the 
greatest benefit that could accrue to the kingdom 
and to the Church of God, and a personal advantage 
to the king and to the whole family of Coligny." 
And finally, his course in claiming the right of pre- 
scription, when he fell back on the privileges of the 
Edict of Pacification, would not indicate a conscious- 
ness of innocence. 



III. 

It was not intended that the massacre should ex- 
tend beyond Paris. We learn from Tavannes that 
the popular fury rendered the massacre general, "to 
the great regret of its advisers, they having resolved 
on the death of only the leaders and the factious." 
They who hold that orders to slaughter the Hugue- 
nots had been sent into the provinces, adduce in 
proof only two letters : one from the Viscount d'Or- 
thez, governor of Bayonne, to Charles IX. ; and one 
from Catharine to Strozzi, who was watching for an 
opportunity to surprise La Eochelle, one of the four 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew 's Day. 231 

cities accorded to the Calvinists. Now, there is 
very good reason for regarding both these letters as 
unauthentic, and no argument can be urged in their 
favor. The first letter, whatever some authors may 
say, is not found in De Thou, not even in the 
Geneva edition of 1620; and this writer's Huguenot 
proclivities and his aversion to Charles IX. would 
not have allowed him to overlook it, had he deemed 
it authentic. It is given only by the malevolent 
D'Aubigne in these words: "I commence with Bay- 
onne, where a courier arrived with orders to cut in 
pieces the men, women, and children of Dax, who 
had sought refuge in the prison. The Viscount 
d'Orthez, governor of the frontier, thus replied to 
the king: 'Sire, I have communicated the order of 
your Majesty to the inhabitants and soldiers of the 
garrison ; and have found them to be good citizens 
and brave warriors, but not executioners. There- 
fore they and I supplicate your Majesty to employ 
them in any possible, even though hazardous, mat- 
ters,' " etc. But the Calvinist martyrologist fur- 
nishes us with reasons for supposing that no such 
orders as the above were expedited, either to 
d'Orthez or to any other governors in the provinces. 
This author, whose work is a veritable "Lives of 
the Saints" for French Protestants, says nothing, 
save in one case, of such instructions ; and certainly 
he was interested in chronicling them, had he known 
of them. But, on the contrary, he tells us that the 
murderers "at Orleans resolved to put their hands 



232 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 

to the work without any orders from the governor, 
D'Entragues ;" that those of Bourges "sent Marueil 
in haste to the court, but he returned bearing no 
commands;" that Charles IX. wrote many letters 
to Bordeaux to the effect that he "had not intended 
that execution to extend beyond Paris." The ex- 
ception to which we have alluded is that of Rouen, 
the Governor of which city, says the martyrologist, 
received orders "to exterminate those of the relig- 
ion;" but this assertion is contradicted, observes 
Barthelemy,* by the inactivity of the governor, and 
by the date of the Rouen murders, which occurred 
nearly a month after those of Paris. 

As for the second letter, that of Catharine to 
Strozzi, no French contemporary or quasi-contem- 
porary historian speaks of it ; not even Brantome, 
who was then at Brouage with Strozzi ; and there 
are intrinsic arguments for its rejection. It is sup- 
posed that six months before the massacre, the 
queen-mother wrote to Strozzi, enclosed in another 
to be read at once, a letter which was not to be 
opened until August 24, the fatal day. In this 
reserved document Catharine is said to have written : 
"Strozzi, I inform you that to-day, August 24, the 
admiral and all the Huguenots here present were 
killed. I earnestly request you to make yourself 
master of La Rochelle, and to do as we have done 
to all the Huguenots who fall into your hands. 



* "La Saint-Barthelemy," in his "Erreurs," vol. i; Paris, 
1865. 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 233 

Beware of backwardness, as you fear to displease 
the king, my son, and me." Now, he who would 
regard this letter as genuine must ascribe to Cath- 
arine a gift of prophecy such as few of the saints 
have received. She must have foreseen that Jane 
d'Albret,* Queen of Navarre, an ardent Huguenot, 
would consent to the marriage of her son, Henry 
de Bourbon, with Margaret de Valois. She must 
have known that Pope St. Pius V., who would not 
grant the necessary dispensation, would soon die, 
and that Gregory XIII. would concede it. She 
must also have seen Coligny and his followers madly 
confiding in the affectionate disposition of Charles 
IX. ; the admiral ignoring the warnings of the 
Rochellois and other Huguenots; the crime of 
Maurevert failing to cause the flight of the future 
victims; and, finally, the certainty of no impru- 
dence on the part of Strozzi, or perhaps his death, 
revealing her letter to the Calvinists. We decline, 
therefore, to accept as authentic either the letter 
from d'Orthez or that to Strozzi. 



* Jane d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, married in 1548 Anthony 
de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome, a lineal descendant of Robert, 
Count of Clermont, son of St. Louis ; this latter having married 
Beatrice, daughter of Archambault de Bourbon. On the death 
of Anthony, in 1562, Jane embraced Calvinism. Her son, the 
great Henry of Navarre, becoming Henry IV. of France in 
1589, definitively united France and Navarre. 



234 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, 

IV. 

The massacre was not the result of long premedi- 
tation. The rejection of the aforesaid letters does 
away with one of the strongest arguments which 
militate against this position. The contemporary 
historians, Capilupi, Masson, Tavannes, Castelnau, 
and others, are said to declare that the massacre was 
planned at the conference held at Bayonne in 1565, 
between Catharine and the Duke of Alva. But 
these authors speak only of a general agreement 
as to mutual aid in extirpating heresy; when any of 
them mention any sanguinary advice on the part of 
Alva, it is to be noted that they do not say that he 
counselled a massacre, but that the Huguenot leaders 
should be "arrested and executed." Now listen to 
the testimony of Queen Margaret, sister of Charles 
IX. In her "Memoires" she says that the massacre 
was designed because of the Huguenot resolution 
to avenge the wounding of Coligny ; and that her 
brother was with difficulty persuaded to consent to 
it, and only when "he had been made to realize that 
otherwise his crown and life were lost." Then we 
have the testimony of the Duke d'Anjou, the king's 
brother, drawn from a MS. of the Royal Library by 
Cavairac. This prince had been elected King of 
Poland in 1573, and while on his way thither he was 
often insulted by Huguenot refugees. He was so 
affected by their curses that he could not sleep, and 
on one occasion the horrors of St. Bartholomew's 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew *s Day. 235 

Day so oppressed him that he summoned his physi- 
cian and favorite, Miron, that he might relieve his 
mind. Then the duke detailed all the circumstances 
of the massacre, and plainly showed that it was a 
sudden conception. We give a synopsis of this 
testimony. "I have called you," said the prince to 
Miron, "to share my restlessness, which is caused 
by my remembrance of the Barthelemy, concerning 
which event perhaps you have never heard the 
truth." Then the duke narrated how he and the 
queen-mother had observed that Coligny had preju- 
diced the king's mind against them; that when, 
after any audience accorded to the admiral, they ap- 
proached his Majesty, "to speak of business or even 
of his own pleasures, they would find him with a 
forbidding countenance," and he would show no 
respect to his mother and no kindness to Anjou. 
One day the prince approached the monarch just as 
Coligny had withdrawn; and Charles would not 
speak to him, but walked furiously up and down 
with his hand upon his dagger, looking askance at 
the prince, so that the latter feared for his life, 
"and deemed himself lucky to get safely out of the 
room." Anjou now consulted Catharine, and "they 
resolved to rid themselves of the admiral." They 
took Mme. de Nemours into their confidence, "on 
account of her hatred for Coligny;" and they sent 
at once for a certain Grascon captain, but did not 
make use of him, because he assured them too 
readily of his good- will, "and without any reserva- 
tion of persons." Then they thought of Maure- 



236 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew \s Day. 

vert, as "one experienced in assassination;" but 
they could influence him only by representing that 
the admiral was bent on avenging the death of 
Moul, whom Maurevert had lately murdered. Mme. 
de Nemours put one of her houses at their disposal ; 
and when the attempt failed, "they were com- 
pelled to look to their own safety." When Charles 
wished to see the admiral, they determined to be 
present at the interview; and the wounded man 
having been admitted to a private conference with 
the king, "they retired to a distance, and became 
very suspicious, especially since they saw themselves 
in the midst of over two hundred of the admiral's 
followers, who, with ferocious countenances, con- 
stantly passed them with little show of respect." 
Catharine soon put an end to the colloquy under the 
specious pretext of care for Coligny's health, and 
then tried to learn from her son the purport of the 
admiral's remarks. At first Charles refused; but, 
being pressed, he swore "by deaths" and brusquely 
declared that "all Coligny had said was true," and 
that he had reproached the king with being a mere 
cipher in the hands of his mother. "This touched 
them to the quick," and the queen-mother "feared 
some change in the government of the kingdom;" 
but "for some hours they could come to no deter- 
mination." The next day Anjou and his mother 
deliberated "as to the means of getting rid of the 
admiral." After dinner they waited on Charles, 
and Catharine "told the king that the Huguenots 
were rising in arms ; that the leaders were enrolling 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 237 

troops in the provinces; that Colignj had procured 
ten thousand cavalry from Germany and as many 
Swiss; that these dangers could be obviated only 
by the death of the admiral and of the chief lead- 
ers of the Huguenot faction." Tavannes, Birague, 
and De Nevers corroborated these assertions ; and 
the king "became furious, but nevertheless would 
not at first hear of any injury to Coligny." He 
asked each one for his individual opinion ; and all 
agreed with Catharine "except the Marshal de Retz, 
who deceived our hopes," saying that "if any one 
ought to hate the admiral, he was one, since Coligny 
had defamed his race throughout Europe ; but that 
he would not revenge himself by means dishonor- 
able to the king and country." But no one sec- 
onded De Retz, and "we soon observed a sudden 
change in the king." The rest of the day was 
devoted to the details of the terrible enterprise. 
The Duke of Guise was entrusted with the death 
of Coligny. Toward the dawn of day, the king, 
Catharine, and Anjou were standing at a window, 
when they heard the report of a pistol, and fell 
back in horror. They sent to revoke the order 
given to Guise, but it was too late.* 

Such, according to the Duke of Anjou, is the 
inner history of the Barthelemy ; and although the 
prince was brother to Charles IX., we hold that his 



* Cavairac : "Dissertation sur la Journee de la Saint-Bar- 
thelemy;" 1758. 



238 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 

testimony is valuable. No one will deny that he 
knew all the circumstances of the massacre; and 
what had he to gain by deceiving Miron ? Certainly 
not self -justification ; for he painted himself in the 
darkest colors. And he could not have wished to 
conciliate the Poles, his future subjects; for Miron 
could not effect such conciliation; and, again, the 
Polish representatives had already shown by their 
unanimous vote that such a course was superfluous. 
And now to the testimonies of Margaret and Henry 
de Valois add those of three celebrated contempo- 
rary historians — the hostile Brantome, the Protest- 
ant La Popeliniere, and Mathieu. Brantome, when 
treating of Catherine dei Medici, says of Coligny's 
aspersions against that queen: "Behold the cause 
of his death, and of that of his followers, as I learned 
it from those who knew it well ; although many be- 
lieve that the fuse was laid sometime previous." 
La Popeliniere gives the arguments for and against 
the supposition of premeditation, and inclines to 
the latter view. Mathieu says that he understood 
from Henry IV. that Catherine informed Yilleroy, 
her confidant, that the massacre was unpremedi- 
tated. Finally, it may be observed with Cavairac 
that, if long prepared, this tragedy would have been 
executed simultaneously, or nearly so, throughout 
France ; and most Protestants believe that it was so 
effected. But at Meaux the slaughter happened on 
August 25, at La Charite on the 26th, at Orleans 
on the 27th, at Saumur and Angers on the 29th, at 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 239 

Lyons on the 30th, at Troyes on September 2, at 
Bruges on the 14th, at Rouen on the 17th, at 
Romans on the 20th, at Toulouse on the 25th, at 
Bordeaux not until October 23. 

But in reply to all the above proofs of the non- 
premeditation of the massacre, it has been alleged 
that Sir Henry Austin Layard, President of the 
London Huguenot Society, discovered facts which 
caused him to come to the conclusion that "there 
can not be a doubt that Pius V. had instigated 
Charles and the queen-mother to exterminate the 
Huguenots, and that Salviati had been instructed 
to press the matter upon them." Thus the Hon. 
John Jay, addressing the American Huguenot So- 
ciety in its annual meeting on April 13, 1888. But 
long before Layard was heard of, Lingard had in- 
vestigated the real connection of the nuncio Salviati 
with the massacre, and had judged that the event 
was not premeditated. While Chateaubriand was 
ambassador at the papal court (1828-30) he pro- 
cured a copy of the correspondence of Pope Gregory 
XIII. with his nuncio Salviati, and sent it to Mack- 
intosh, who used it in his "History of England." 
This correspondence proves that at the time of the 
massacre Salviati knew nothing of the designs of 
the French court. We transcribe Lingard 's synop- 
sis of these letters: "On August 24 he (Salviati) 
wrote an account of the occurrence in ordinary 
characters (evidently under the notion that in such 
circumstances his dispatch would probably be inter- 



240 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 

cepted and opened on the road) ; but to this he 
added another and real statement of the case in 
cipher: that the queen-regent, in consequence of 
the ascendency which gave to Coligny in a manner 
the government of the kingdom (quasi g over nav a) , 
consulted with the Duchess of Nemours, and re- 
solved to rid herself of his control by the assassina- 
tion of the admiral. The Duke of Guise provided 
the assassin ; the Duke of Anjou, but not the king, 
was privy to the attempt. The queen, however, 
when she saw that the admiral would not die of his 
wound, and considered the danger to which she was 
now exposed, alarmed also by her own consciousness, 
and by the threatening speeches of the whole body 
of the Huguenots, who would not believe that the 
arquebuse had been discharged by an assassin em- 
ployed by the Duke of Alva, as she had persuaded 
herself that she could make them believe, had 
recourse to the king, and exhorted him to adopt 
the plan of the general* massacre which followed. 
It appears that the cardinal-secretary, in his answer 
to this dispatch, probably on account of the different 
reports current in Rome, put to the nuncio several 
questions respecting the cause, the authors, and the 
circumstances of the massacre. Salviati, in reply, 
wrote two notes on September 22. In the first he 
says: 'With regard to the three points: (1) who 



* The words of Salviati do not necessarily imply, as Lin- 
gard would infer, that the slaughter was to be "general." 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew } s Day. 241 

it was that caused, and for what reason that person 
caused, the arquebuse to be discharged at the 
admiral; (2) and who it was to whom the subse- 
quent resolution of so numerous a massacre must be 
ascribed; (3) and who were the executors of the 
massacre, with the names of the principal leaders; 
I know that I have already sent you an account, and 
that in that account I have not fallen into the least 
error. If I have omitted to mention some other 
particulars, the chief reason is the difficulty of 
coming at the truth in this country.' This passage 
was written in ordinary characters ; but he wrote the 
same day in cipher the following repetition of his 
former statement : 'Time will show whether there 
be any truth in all the other accounts which you 
may have read, of the wounding and death of the 
admiral, that differ from what I wrote to you. The 
queen-regent, having grown jealous of him, came to 
a resolution a few days before, and caused the arque- 
buse to be discharged at him without the knowledge 
of the Jcing, but with the participation of the Duke 
of Anjou, of the Duchess of Nemours and of her 
son, the Duke of Guise. Had he died immediately, 
no one else would have perished. But he did not 
die, and they began to expect some great evil; 
wherefore, closeting themselves in consultation with 
the king, they determined to throw shame aside, 
and to cause him (Coligny) to be assassinated with 
the others; a determination which was carried into 
execution that very night. ' Evidence more satisfac- 
tory than this we can not desire, if we consider 



24:2 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 

the situation of the writer, the object for which 
he wrote, and the time and opportunity which he 
possessed of correcting any error which might have 
crept into his previous communication; and from 
this evidence it plainly follows that the general 
massacre was not originally contemplated, but grew 
out of the unexpected failure of the attempt already 
made on the life of the admiral." 

Mr. Jay introduces his arguments under the 
auspices of Baron Acton, whom he carefully notes 
as "a very distinguished Roman Catholic historian, 
who so admirably represents the honorable mem- 
bers of that faith who reject the doctrines and 
methods of the Jesuits." * He tells us that Acton 
furnished the London Times of November 26, 
1874, with a translation of some Italian letters 
from Salviati to his Eoman superiors, which prove 
that religion had very much to do with the 
massacre. On September 22, 1572, a month after 
the tragedy, the nuncio is represented as commu- 
nicating to the king the desire of his Holiness, 



* Since many very good Catholics have rejected certain 
teachings of certain Jesuits, just as other good Catholics have 
rejected certain teachings of other schools, this remark might 
be allowed to pass. Bat coming from Mr. Jay, this sentence 
would indicate, even to those who are unacquainted with Ac- 
ton's career, that his, "liberal Catholicism" was impatient of 
all control. And at the time of his letter to the London paper, 
the quondam Catholic editor had thrown off his allegiance to 
the centre of unity, had joined the "Old Catholic" heresy, and 
was no more of a Catholic than is Mr. Jay himself. 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 243 

"for the great glory of God, and the greatest wel- 
fare of France, to see all the heretics of the king- 
dom exterminated." And on October 11 the same 
Salviati is said to have declared that the Pope had 
experienced "an infinite joy and great consolation 
in learning that his Majesty had commanded him 
(Salviati) to write that he hoped that in a little 
while France would have no more Huguenots." 
Well, what does all this prove? One who is ac- 
quainted with the epistolary style of the Roman 
Curia will not be frightened at the use, in the first 
dispatch, of a word which Acton translated into 
"exterminated." Every bishop is sworn to "extir- 
pate heresy;" but who believes that the American 
hierarchy is ready, if it had the power, to inaugurate 
another Barthelemy? We, too, sincerely pray that 
the day will soon come when this Republic will have 
no more Protestants; but is not the American 
priesthood full of that material out of which the 
Catholic Church forms a St. Vincent de Paul, a St. 
Philip Neri, and a Don Bosco? 



V. 

The number of the victims of the massacre has 
been greatly exaggerated. It is remarkable that in 
proportion to their distance in tirr^e from this event, 
authors increase the number of the slaughtered. 
Thus, Masson gives it as 10,000; the Calvinist 
martyrologist as about 15,000; the Calvinist, La 



244 On the Massacre of St, Ba?*tholomew's Day. 

Popeliniere, as more than 20,000; De Thou, the 
apologist of the Huguenots, as 30,000 "or a little 
less;" the Huguenot Sully as 70,000; Perefixe, 
a Catholic bishop, as 100,000. From this last 
number to 2,000, the figures established by Cavairac, 
the difference is immense. Now, if we will com- 
pare the authority, in this particular matter, of 
Masson with that of Perefixe, we shall opine that 
the former's estimate is the correct one. Masson 
did not wish to hide from posterity the true num- 
ber of the slain; he openly laments that Calvinism 
was not destroyed by this great blow; he labors 
much in gathering apparent proofs that the mas- 
sacre was long premeditated. Therefore he would 
have cheerfully recorded a larger number of victims, 
if truth had allowed him. Perefixe, however, had 
an interest in exaggerating the effects of a policy 
of cruelty; preceptor to the young Louis XIV., 
he might, remarks Barthelemy, have too readily 
accorded credence to the largest estimate of the 
victims of an event which he offered to the exe- 
cration of his pupil. But our attention is princi- 
pally claimed by the calculations of the Calvinist 
martyrologist. When this interested author speaks 
in general terms, he puts the victims at 30,000; 
when he goes into details, he presents us 15,168; 
when he gives their names, he can furnish only 
786. Now, we must suppose that this writer, 
engaged upon the pious work of perpetuating the 
memory of those whom he regarded as martyrs 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew 's Day. 245 

for "the religion," as his title-page announces, 
took every care to discover their names ; and the 
zeal and vanity of their friends would have helped 
him. Nevertheless, he could name only 786. We 
do not believe that this number includes all the 
victims of the massacre; but we do contend that 
the martyrologist's estimate by cities and villages, 
15,168, is an exaggeration. He designates the 
victims in Paris as 10,000, but his details show 
only 468 ; it is not unlikely therefore, conjectures 
Barthelemy, that a zero slipped into his Paris total, 
and that it should be made 1,000. This, indeed, is 
the opinion of the Calvinist La Popeliniere, and it 
is confirmed by a bill at the Hotel de Ville of Paris, 
which indicates that 1,100 were buried in the 
suburbs. We regard, therefore, as nearly correct 
the assertion of La Popeliniere that the victims in 
Paris were about 1,000 in number; and since it is 
generally conceded that the slain in all the other 
parts of France together were less numerous than 
in Paris, it would appear that Cavairac did not err 
when he declared that all the victims of St. Bar- 
tholomew's Day amounted to about 2,000 persons. 
The reader will doubtless expect us to allude 
to the charge made against Charles IX., of having 
taken an actively personal part in the massacre. 
Voltaire makes much of the accusation that the 
monarch fired on the Huguenots from a balcony 
in the Louvre.* Prudhomme represents Charles 



•Essay on the Civil Wars"— "Henriade," in the Notes. 



246 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, 

as leaving a game of billiards for this purpose.* 
This charge is founded only on the assertions of 
Brantome, who, according to his own admission, 
was a hundred leagues from Paris on the day 
of the massacre ;f and of D'Aubigne, who says 
that he left the capital three days before the 
event. :J Sully, a Calvinist who was present and 
barely saved his life, says nothing in his "Me- 
moires" of the king's intervention. Again, that 
part of the Louvre from which Charles is said 
to have fired an arquebuse, 'and to mark which 
with infamy the Commune of 1793 erected "un 
poteau infamant," was not built until nearly the 
end of the reign of Henry IV., over thirty years 
after the Barthelemy. Finally, the accusation 
against Charles IX. is refuted by a Huguenot 
pamphlet of 1579 — that is, written twenty-five 
years before the narrative of Brantome, and 
thirty-seven before that of D'Aubigne. In this 
work, entitled "A Tocsin against the Murderers 
and the Authors of Discord in France," § we 
read: "Although one might suppose that so 
great a carnage would have satiated the cruelty 
of the young king, of a woman, and of many of 
their courtiers, they seem to have grown more sav- 
age as the work approached their own eyes. The 



* "Kevolutions de Paris." 

f "CEuvres," edit. 1779, vol. i, p. 62. 

X "M^moires," edit. Lalanne, p. 23. 

§ Published in the "Archives" of Cimber & Danjou. 



On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 247 

king showed no diminution of zeal; for although 
he did not use his own hands in the massacre, 
nevertheless, being at the Louvre, he ordered that 
according as the work advanced in the city, the 
names of the killed and of the prisoners should be 
brought to him, that.he might decide as to whom to 
spare." And Bran tome himself shows the small 
value of his assertions concerning the massacre, 
when he tells us that the king " wished only Master 
Ambrose Pare, his chief surgeon, to be spared."* 
We know from the "Memoires" of Margaret de 
Yalois that Charles wished to spare LaNoue, Telig- 
ny, La Rochefoucauld, and even Coligny ; and the 
writings of Pare show that this surgeon w r as a de- 
vout Catholic, and that, therefore, there was no need 
for anxiety in his regard on the part of the king. 
The Catholicism of Pare is also proved by the fact 
of the interment of his body in the church of St. 
Andre-des-Arts, of which the famous leaguer Aubry 
was pastor, f 

In conclusion, we would say with Louis Yeuillot 
that Catholics generally adduce the extenuating 
circumstances of the Barthelemy with too great 
timidity. Catharine dei Medici was a freethinker 
of the Macchiavellian school, provoked by Calvinist 



* '-Homines Illustres," in the Discourses on "Coligny" 
and "Charles IX." 

t See the introduction of Malgaigne to the "CEuvres" of 
Pare\ 



248 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 

sedition; and since she could not otherwise pre- 
serve her power or even save her head, she adopted 
the policy of assassination. In the whole affair the 
Catholic faith was conspicuous for its absence ; the 
executioners were no more influenced by it than the 
victims. God, says Bossuet, often chastises crimes 
by other crimes. The ninth Thermidor, says M. de 
Maistre, witnessed the slaughter of certain mon- 
sters by others of the same sort. Just like the 
ninth Thermidor, the Barthelemy was a human 
wickedness and a divine justice. 



THE MIDDLE AGE NOT A STARLESS 
NIGHT. 

We frequently hear that in the Middle Age the 
clergy systematically kept the laity in ignorance ; 
that even the nobility were so uncultivated, that 
in the public records of those times it is quite 
common to meet the clause: "And the said lord 
declares that he knows not how to sign [his name], 
because of his condition of gentleman" Charle- 
magne himself, it is said, could not write. But are 
these allegations true ? In the early period of the 
Middle Age, ignorance was undoubtedly the lot of 
the warriors who became the progenitors of most of 
the European nobles; but when these barbarians 
had become Christians and members of civilized 
society, is it true that they generally remained in 
that ignorance ? 

The learned Benedictine, Cardinal Pitra,* has 
proved that in nearly all monasteries there were 
two kinds of schools — the internal, for the youth 
who wished to become religious ; and the external, 
for the children who showed no such vocation. 
And do we not know how Abelard's retreat, the 
Paraclete, was filled with hundreds of young lay- 
men, zealous for knowledge? Vincent of Beauvais 



* In his "Histoire de St. Leger." 
249 



250 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

(y. 1250) writes that "the sons of the nobility 
need to acquire expensive learning;" and Giles 
of Eome (1290) says that "the children of kings 
and of great lords must have masters to teach 
them all science, and especially a knowledge of 
Latin." The nobles are said to have despised 
learning, but we know that they were very zealous 
in founding schools. Thus at Paris alone six col- 
leges were established by noble laymen ; that of 
Laon, in 1313, by Guy of Laon and Raoul de 
Presles; that of Presles, in 1313, by this Kaoul; 
that of Boncourt, in 1357, by Peter de Flechinel; 
that of the Ave Maria, in 1336, by John of Hu- 
baut; that of La Marche, in 1362, by William de 
la Marche; that of the Grassins, in 1369, by Peter 
d'Ablon. The researches of Du Boulai, of Crevier, 
and in our own day, of Beaurepaire, show how 
untrue is the assertion that the mediaeval laity 
were plunged in wof ul ignorance. In the thirteenth 
century, at least, all the peasants of Normandy 
could read and write, carried writing materials at 
their girdles, and many of them were no strangers 
to Latin. Bertrand deBorn, William of Aquitaine, 
and Bernard of Ventadour, bear witness that then 
at least the nobles of France were no more hostile 
to letters than the peasants were, and that they 
shared in the poetical movement of the South. 
The first chroniclers who wrote in French were 
nobles and laymen — Villehardouin and Joinville. 
In 1337 we find the scions of the first families 



The Middle Age Not a Starless Right. 251 

following the courses of the University of Orleans. 
As to the documents which they are said to have 
been unable to sign, "because of their condition of 
gentlemen," such papers do not exist, and no pale- 
ographer has yet unearthed one containing the 
alleged formula. Certainly, in order to obtain some 
proof of this medieval ignorance, some have had 
recourse to the crosses traced at the foot of doc- 
uments of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and 
to the absence of signatures in those of the thir- 
teenth. "But this pretended proof can not stand 
the tests of diplomatic science," remarks M. Louan- 
dre. "In those days deeds were not authenticated 
by written names, but by crosses and seals. The 
most ancient royal signatures are of no earlier date 
than that of Charles V. (of France)," who died 
in 1380.* 

Even in the early Middle Age every cathedral, 
and nearly every monastery, had its school and 
library, in accordance with canonical enactments. 
Hallam admits that "the praise of having originally 
established schools belongs to some bishops and 
abbots of the sixth century;" but — at least so 
far as Ireland is concerned — it is certain that 
her schools were celebrated throughout Europe in 
the fifth century. As to the Continent, we find 
the Council of Vaison recommending, in 529, the 
institution of free parochial schools. To mention 



* In the "Revue des Deux Mondes" for Jan. 15, 1877, p. 
452. 



252 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night, 

only a few of similar decrees, there is a canon 
of the Third General Council of Constantinople, 
in 680, commanding priests to have free schools 
in all country places ; one of a Synod of Orleans, 
in 800, ordering the parochial clergy "to teach 
little children with the greatest kindness, receiv- 
ing no compensation, save the voluntary offerings 
of parents;" one of Mentz, in 813, commanding 
parents to send their children "to the schools in 
the monasteries or in the houses of the parish 
clergy;" one of Rome, in 826, prescribing schools 
in every suitable place. 

As to higher education, not only was it not neg- 
lected, but the most celebrated universities were 
founded and perfected in the "dark" ages. Most 
renowned was the Irish school of Benchor (Bangor) 
with its thousands of scholars, and the other Irish 
establishments at Lindisfarnein England, at Bobbio 
in Italy, at Verdun in France, and at Wurzburg, 
Eatisbon, Erfurt, Cologne, and Vienna, in Germany. 
The great University of Bologna, an outgrowth of 
the school for law there established by Theodosius 
II. in the fifth century, became so famous under 
Irnerius (d. 1140) that of foreigners alone more 
than ten thousand thronged its halls. * The Univer- 



* The University of Bologna was a corporation of scholars 
who were divided into two great "nations" — Cismontanes 
(Italians), and Ultramontanes (foreigners) — each having its 
own rector, who must have taught law for five years and have 
"been a student of the University, and could not be a monk or 
friar. The students elected this rector, and none of the pro- 



The Middle Age Wot a Starless Wight. 253 

sity of Padua frequently numbered eighteen thou- 
sand students. Famous also were the Universities 
of Rome, Pavia, Naples, and Perugia; of Paris; of 
Alcala, Salamanca, and Valladolid; of Oxford and 
Cambridge. In Germany the thirteenth century 
was an unfortunate one for letters. Leibnitz says 
that the tenth was golden compared with the thir- 
teenth; Heeren calls it most unfruitful; Meiners 
constantly deplores it; Eichorn designates it as 
' 'wisdom degenerated into barbarism." But the 
fourteenth century brought a change to the Ger- 
mans. The University of Vienna was founded in 
1364 ; that of Heidelberg in 1386 ; of Erfurt, 1392 ; 
of Leipsic, 1409 ; of Wurzburg, 1410 ; of Rostock, 
1419; of Louvain, 1425; of Treves, 1454; of 
Freiburg, 1456 ; of Basel, 1459 ; of Ingolstadt, 
1472; Tubingen and Metz, 1477; Cologne, 1483. 
Gerard Groot, a student of Paris, founded in 1376, 
at Deventer, his birthplace, an order whose mem- 
bers were sworn to help the poor, either by their 
manual labor or by gratuitous instruction. "Very 
soon this order," says Cantu, ' 'associating thus the 
two passions of that time — piety and study, — taught 
trades and writing in those monasteries which were 
called of St. Jerome, or of the Good Brethren, or of 
the Common Life; while in other places it kept 
schools of writing and of mechanics for poor chil- 



fessors had a voice in the assembly unless they had previously 
been rectors. However, in the faculty of theology the profes- 
sors governed. Popes Gregory IX., Boniface VIII., Clement 
V., and John XXII., addressed their Decretals "to the doctors 



and scholars of Bologna, 



254 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

dren. To others it taught Latin, Greek, Hebrew, 
Mathematics, and Fine Arts. In 1433 it had forty- 
five houses, and in 1460 thrice that number. 
Thomas a Kempis transported the system to St. 
Agnes, near Zwolle, where were formed the apos- 
tles of classic literature in Germany: Maurice, 
Count of Spiegelberg, and Rudolph Langius, after- 
ward prelates ; Anthony Liber, Louis Dringenberg, 
Alexander Hagius, and Rudolph Agricola." 

As to the pretended ignorance of Charlemagne, 
we prefer more ancient and more reliable authority 
than that of Voltaire, the author of this assertion.* 
In the "Acts" of the Council of Fisme, held in 
881, we read that the members exhorted King 
Louis III. "to imitate Charlemagne, who used to 
place tablets under his pillow, that he might take 
note of whatever came to his mind during the 
night which would profit the Church, or conduce 
to the prosperity of his kingdom." It was the 
celebrated Hincmar who, in the name of the Coun- 
cil, drew up these "Acts" of Fisme; and certainly 
he is good authority in this matter, for he had 
passed much of his life in the society of Louis 
the Compliant, a son of Charlemagne. But is not 



* Voltaire makes this charge four different times, but in 
contradictory terms. In his "Essai sur les Mceurs," in the 
Introduction, he says that Charlemagne "did not know how 
to write his name." In chapter six he adduces Eginhard to 
this effect. In the "Annales de l'Empire" he says that "it is 
not likely that this Frankish King, who could not write a 
running hand, could compose Latin verses;" and in another 
place of the same work he says that the monarch "could not 
write his name weZL" 



The Middle Age Rot a Starless Right. 255 

the testimony of Eginhard, son-in-law of Charle- 
magne, to be preferred to that of the prelates of 
Fisme? Sismondi, who admits the extraordinary 
learning of the great Emperor, is so impressed by 
the words of Eginhard, that he concludes that the 
monarch acquired his knowledge by means of oral 
teaching. We would prefer the authority of the 
bishops of France headed by Hincmar, to that of 
Eginhard ; but the two testimonies do not conflict. 
Eginhard says : "He tried to write, and he used to 
keep tablets under the pillows of his bed, so that, 
when time permitted, he could accustom his hand 
to the forming of letters ; but he had little success 
in a task difficult in itself, and assumed so late 
in life."* Eginhard admits, then, that Charle- 
magne had some success in his endeavors. We 
know, too, that he could form his monogram ;f 

* "Tentabat et scribere, tabellasque et codicillos ad hoc 
in lecticulo sub cervicalibus circumferre solebat, ut cum 
vacuum tempus esset, manum effigiandis litteris assuefaceret; 
sed parum prospere successit labor prseposterus ac sero in- 
choatus." 

f In the space occupied by a iThe put the other letters of 
his name, "Karolus:" 

R 

K-<^-S 

L 

Iii Papal letters of the Middle Ages we often meet the mon- 
ogram of "Bene valete :*" 




256 The Middle Age JSTot a Starless Night. 

and Lambecius, the erudite secretary of Christina 
of Sweden, speaks of a manuscript of St. Paul's 
Epistle to the Romans "corrected by the Emperor's 
own hand."* We are therefore led to accept 
that interpretation of Eginhard's remark which 
is given by Lambecius, and since that critic's time 
by the best commentators, such as Michelet,t 
Henri Martin, J and Guizot;§ to the effect that 
there is therein no question of writing in general, 
but merely of a running hand. In fine, Charle- 
magne could write by means of what we style 
square or printed characters ; he found it difficult 
to write a running hand; in other words, he could 
write, but he was not a caligrapher. Ampere 
opines that the monarch tried to excel in the art 
of illuminating manuscripts, — that is, of painting 
the majuscule letters which so excite the admiration 
of moderns. 






* "Commentaria in Bibl. Cses. Vindob.," b. ii, c. 5. 
Vienna, 1655. 

f "Histoire de France," edit. 1835, vol. i, p. 332. 

% "Histoire de France," edit. 1855, vol. ii, p. 292.— "It 
would be strange indeed if this great man, who was versed in 
astronomy and in Greek, and who labored to correct the text 
of the Four Gospels, was unable to write." 

§ "Histoire de France, Racontee a Mes Petits-Enfants," 
vol. i, p. 228. Paris, 1872.— "It has been doubted whether he 
could write, and a passage of Eginhard might authorize the 
doubt; but when I consider other testimonies, and even this 
very remark of Eginhard, I incline to the belief that Charle- 
magne wrote with difficulty and not very well." 



The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 257 

Since Eginhard is adduced to prove the ignorance 
of Charlemagne, it is well to note what this chron- 
icler tells us, in the same chapter, about the Empe- 
ror's learning. Charlemagne spoke Latin fluently 
and with elegance; Greek was familiar to him, 
although his pronunciation of it was defective. He 
was passionately fond of the fine arts. He drew 
to his court the wisest men of the day — e. g., Peter 
of Pisa and Alcuin, and very soon he nearly equalled 
his masters in their respective branches. He began 
the composition of a Teutonic grammar, and he 
undertook a version of the New Testament based 
on the Greek and Syriac texts. He understood 
perfectly the intricacies of liturgy, psalmody, the 
Gregorian Chant, etc. During his meals he listened 
to the reading of histories ; he was especially fond 
of St. Augustine's "City of God." He preferred 
to attend the schools he had founded, rather than 
any kind of amusement. Furthermore and finally, 
he compelled his daughters, as well as his sons, to 
cultivate the fine arts. 

In this so badly understood epoch, flourished 
Abelard, Dante, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas. 
It is true that the hunting and soldiering barbarians 
at first disdained the peaceful triumphs of letters, 
and regarded the fine arts as a disgraceful inherit- 
ance of the people they had conquered ; that for a 
time even the olden subjects — of the secular order 
— of Eome lost taste for the sublime and the beau- 
tiful. But then science found friends in the sanc- 
tuarv and in the cloister; and the clergy preserved, 



258 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night, 

as a sacred deposit, the traditions of literature and 
art. As for moral science, have modern times sur- 
passed SS. Anselm and Peter Damain, Lanfranc 
or Peter Lombard? As for practical science and 
the arts, are we much more advanced than our 
medieval ancestors ? We will here mention a few 
of the inventions and improvements which we owe 
to these compassionated men : 

I. — The paper on which we write (linen) is, 
according to Hallam, an invention of the year 1100 ; 
and cotton paper was used in Italy in the tenth 
century. Casiri, drawing up a catalogue of the 
Escurial Library, says that most of its mediaeval 
manuscripts are of rag-paper, or chartaceos, as he 
styles them in contradistinction to the membran- 
eous and cotton ones. He cites the "Aphorisms" 
of Hippocrates in a paper codex of the year 1100, 
but does not deem it remarkable. Venerable Peter 
of Cluny, in a treatise against the Jews, speaks of 
books made from the shreds of old clothes. 

II. — The art of printing, or rather the press, 
was invented in 1436, either by Lawrence Coster, 
a priest of the Cathedral of Harlem and a xylo- 
graph printer, or by the artist Gansneish, called 
Gutenberg ; * but printing by hand was done in the 



* The Abb£ le Noir, in his re-arrangement of Bergier's 
"Dictionary," analyzes the known facts concerning this in- 
vention, and thus concludes: "Coster, we believe, invented 
and first employed movable types. Gutenberg came across 
Coster's plans, perfected them, and with invincible patience 



The Middle Age Rot a Starless Night. 259 

tenth century. The "Chronicles of Feltre" tell us 
that Panfilio Castalcli, a humanist of that city, 
taught his disciple Faust, in 1436, the use of mov- 
able types. Stereotyping, now the perfection of 
printing, was practised by Coster; though of course 
he knew of no way of casting the plates. 

III. — That music may now be called a science is 
due to an Italian monk, Guido of Arezzo, who 
determined the scale, hitherto uncertain, in 1124. 
His "solmization" — or the use of the ut, re, mi, fa, 
sol, la — was signified by means of the words of the 
first verses of the Vesper hymn for the Feast of 
St. John the Baptist. Before the time of Pope 
Gregory the Great (el. 590), the Italians used an 
alphabetical notation composed of the first fifteen 
letters ; but that Pontiff reduced them to the first 
seven for the diatonic scale, distinguishing the 
octaves by capitals for the lower, and small letters 
for the upper. Ughelli proves, in his "Sacred 
Italy," that the Italians used pneumatic organs in 
the ninth century. 

IV. — In the twelfth century, the mariners of 
Amain* first applied the knowledge of the loadstone 
to navigation, thus enabling subsequent Italian nav- 
igators to prosecute geographical discovery. 



tried to execute thein on a grand scale. But, constantly need- 
ing funds, he was forced to put himself into the hands of an 
adroit banker, Faust, who played upon him the trick he him- 
self had played upon Coster: appropriated the invention and 
gathered the profits." 



260 The Middle Age JSToi a Starless Night. 

V. — It is amusing to learn that in those days 
of alleged ignorance, and hence of presumed 
neglect of study, one of the most important aids 
to study should have been invented. To enable 
persons of defective eyesight to read, the ancients 
used a sphere filled with water; but about 1285 
a monk of Pisa, named Salvino d'Armato, invented 
spectacles. In a sermon preached in Florence on 
February 23, 1305, the celebrated friar, Giordano 
di Rivalta, said: "Only twenty years ago were 
spectacles invented ; I knew and conversed with the 
inventor." 

VI.— By a people's language we can surely judge 
of their refinement and intellectual calibre. Hum- 
boldt may have erred when he pronounced that 
grammatical forms are not the fruit of the progress 
made by a nation in the analysis of thought ; but he 
was right in saying that these forms "are results of 
the manner in which a nation considers and treats 
its language." And we are asked to believe that 
the densest ignorance and the grossest sentiments 
were the portion of those times which produced the 
sweet and philosophic Italian, the majestic Spanish, 
the graceful French, and the forcible English and 
German tongues. When the decay of the Roman 
Empire and of Roman civilization had entailed that 
of the Latin language, the succeeding jargons couid 
not be termed languages; but Christianity took 
hold of the raw material, and, to use the words of 
Gioberti, "placed therein the embryonic principles 



The Middle Age JSTot a Starless Night. 261 

of new organizations, and fecundated them with 
the hieratic word, performing the two duties sym- 
bolized by the Oriental myths of the cosmic egg 
and androgynism. Thus the modern idioms were 
born from the material of the old, informed and 
organized by the religious idea and by the sacerdotal 
word. At first each of these idioms was a mere 
dialect, — that is, a vulgar speech, rude, ignoble, 
private, unfit for public use and for writing; not 
yet possessed of a life of its own, independent of 
the mother's. And just as the fetus becomes a 
man, the human animal an infant, coming out into 
the light, and entirely separating from the maternal 
body, so a dialect is transformed into an illustrious 
language, fit to signify ideal things through the 
work of noble writers, who divert it from popular 
usage, and introduce it into the forum, the temple, 
the schools, and the conversation of the learned."* 
VII. — Have the modern times rivalled the Middle 
Ages in architectural skill and taste? With the 
exception of St. Peter's at Rome — itself a result of 
the spirit of that despised period, — all the most 
magnificent structures of Europe, all the real tri- 
umphs of architecture, are of mediaeval conception 
and execution. Glass windows, too, introduced in 
the fourth century, commenced to present beautiful 
colors in the early Middle Age ; and in the twelfth 
century the Church, by means of those wonderful 
window-pictures, developed her plan, begun in the 



* "Primato Civile e Morale degli Italiani," Capolago, 1846, 
vol. it, p. 275. 



2Q2 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

Catacombs of Rome, of reaching the hearts and 
intellects of such of her children as, perchance, 
were not penetrated by the words of her preachers. 

VIII. — In 650 windmills were invented; in 657, 
organs; Greek fire in 670; carpet-weaving in 720 ; 
clocks in 760; in 790 the Arabic numerals were in- 
troduced; in 1130 the silkworm was first cultivated 
in Europe; in 1278 gunpowder was linvented; en- 
graving in 1410; oil-painting, though many ascribe 
it to Van Eyck, was in use in 1415. 

As for the science of criticism, which many regard 
as a peculiar pride of our century, it is generally 
supposed to have been so little understood as to 
indicate by its absence the intellectual inferiority of 
the Middle Ages. And yet modern critics can point 
to very few questions, agitated by themselves, which 
were not raised during that period. It is a remark- 
able fact that while the critics of the Golden Asre of 
Leo X. credited the tales of Annio of Viterbo (the 
Chatterton of the fifteenth century), and while 
even the skeptics of the * 'Encyclopedia" believed in 
Ossian, the darkest century of the Middle Ages — 
the eleventh — disputed the authenticity of the false 
"Decretals" of Isidore Mercator. Centuries before 
the Protestants of England and America gave up 
their persecution of witches, Bishop Agobard and 
King Luitprand had condemned such absurdity 
(ninth century); and the former had protested 
against trials by combat, and against ordeals by fire 
and water. Nor can modern times claim the credit 



J 



The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 263 

of having discovered what is called the Copernican 
system; for Bishop John of Salisbury (d. 1180), 
and four centuries before him the Irish monk, 
Virgilius (Ferghil), had taught the correct mun- 
dane system and the existence of the antipodes. 

Never in modern days have the pretensions of 
sovereigns been more jealously watched and more 
heartily resisted by the peoples than in the days so 
generally supposed to have been a period of prostra- 
tion before royal caprice. Whereas the legislation 
of ancient Eome had established the sole will of the 
prince as the reason of all law, the Canon Law of 
the Church, a crowning glory of the Middle Ages, 
taught that law supposes the consent of the people, 
and has for its end only the good of the community. 
As far back as the eighth century Eattier, Bishop of 
Verona, proclaimed that human nature is ever equal 
to itself, and that therefore no man has received 
from God the right to command his neighbor. The 
science of government has never been laid down bet- 
ter than by the Angelic Doctor, that light sufficient 
of itself to dissipate the darkness of an entire 
epoch.* 

No modern abolitionist has more earnestly pleaded 
in favor of universal freedom than did the monk 



* "Two things are necessary to found a durable order of 
things in the state. All must be participants in the general 
government, so that all may have an interest in maintaining 
the public peace. That form must be adopted which com- 
bines all powers most happily. The happiest combination is 
that which places at the head a virtuous ruler, who will sur- 
round himself with a number of notables who will rule accord- 



264 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

Smaragdus in the eighth century. The masses were 
no more content in those days than they are now 
to quietly accept whatever they found at hand. 
"Every dogma, rite, and system," observes Cantu, 
"found champions an I opponents; and the political 
heresies of Arnold of Brescia and of Friar Dolcino, 
the philosophical ones of Origen and of Abelard, 
the religious ones of Photius and of the Albigenses, 
left nothing new for Luther and Socinus to pro- 
nounce. And what if we reflect that these rude an- 
cestors of ours civilized half the world ; that by the 
translation of the Bible modern languages were 
formed; that hymns were compossd which were 
sung by the most refined centuries; that entire 
nations were withdrawn from licentious and ferocious 
superstition? Undoubtedly, much was wanting; 
but deny, if you can, to Alexander the title of 
consummate general because he would not have 
been able to conquer at Leipsic or to reduce Ant- 
werp; or the title of poet to Homer because he 
was ignorant of geography and astronomy." 

In the Middle Ages the science of government 
had already been able to abolish that system of cen- 
tralization which in later times became, and is yet, 



ingto equity; and who, being taken from every class by means 
of a universal suffrage, will thus associate the entire people in 
the cares of government. In its beneficent organization such 
a state would combine royalty, represented by its one head; 
aristocracy, in its magistrates chosen from among the best 
citizens ; and democracy, manifested in the election of the mag- 
istrates, effected in the ranks and by the voice of the people." 
(SeeCh. Jourdain's "La Philosophic de St. Thomas d'Aquin," 
Vol. i, p. 407.— "Summa Theol.," p. 1, 2, q. 2, c. 8, a. 7.) 



The Middle Age JSfot a Starless Wight. 265 

the curse of modern Europe. In England, then per- 
fectly Catholic, parliamentary government was de- 
veloped, at least as to its essentials ; for the English 
liberties date from the Charter of Henry I. in 
1103 ; and above all from the great Charter of John 
Lackland in 1215 ; and the Provisions of Oxford in 
1258, the source of the House of Commons. Spain 
had her liberties developed in her cortes, and Ger- 
many in her diets. In France political life was nour- 
ished by the Champs de Mars and of May, and then 
by the Estates. And in Italy, where the influence 
of the Papacy was the most immediately exercised, 
the most favorable ground for republican institutions 
was found and cultivated; the glories of the medi- 
aeval republics of Genoa, Pisa, Sienna, Florence and 
Venice, need no description. This last point is 
beyond contestation ; political liberty existed in the 
"dark" ages, and under the full domination of the 
Catholic Church.* 



* Balmes says: "The greatest development of the royal 
power in Spain occurred on the appearance of Protestantism. In 
England, commencing with Henry VIII., it was not monarchy 
that prevailed, but a cruel despotism, the excesses of which 
could not be disguised by a vain shadow of representative 
forms. In France, after the wars of the Huguenots, the royal 
power was more absolute than ever. In Sweden, Gustavus 
mounts the throne, and from that moment the kings exer- 
cise almost unlimited power. In Denmark, the monarchy 
perpetuates and strengthens itself. In Germany, the kingdom 
of Prussia is formed, and absolutism generally prevails. In 
Austria, the empire of Charlemagne retains all its power and 
splendor. In Italy, the little republics disappear, and the 
peoples recur to the domination of princes. In Spain, the 
ancient cortes of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia, fall 
into abeyance." 



2t>6 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

Well might Augustine Thierry call the Middle 
Ages the real epoch of liberty. Even in the Papal 
States, the government of which at this period 
might naturally be supposed to have been redolent 
of absolutism, the Popes of those days carried on 
their government in union with their people, — that 
is, with the "Rpman Republic." It was not until 
1353 that Cardinal Albornoz, legate of Pope Inno- 
cent VI. (residing at Avignon), tried to introduce a 
sovereignty like that in other monarchies by destroy- 
ing the petty lords ; but even he guaranteed many 
of the ancient privileges by his "Egidian Constitu- 
tions," which for centuries remained the real public 
law of the Romagna; and down to the revolution of 
1797 the pontifical sovereignty remained rather nom- 
inal than despotic. In fact, not before the Congress 
of Vienna, in 1815 — the royal members of which, 
says Cantu, wished that all mediate jurisdiction 
should cease, and that, especially in Italy, no written 
rights of the people should exist, — did absolutism 
in any sense prevail in the Papal States.* 

Nor was the will of a nation, as to its choice of a 
ruler, a thing generally ignored in the Middle Ages. 
In England the early kings mounted the throne only 
with the consent of the "witans," or great ones; 



* "Absolutism was an entirely new thing in the Papal 
States," says Cantu; "and when Pius IX. initiated and blessed 
the Italian movement, he protested, in his Constitution of 
March 14, 1848, that he did nothing but 'restore some ancient 
institutions which were for a long time the mirror of the wis- 
dom of our august predecessors;' and that 'in the olden time 
our Communes had the privilege of governing themselves, 



The Middle Age JSTot a Starless Night. 267 

and the olden writers ordinarily speak of election as 
the title to reign of their sovereigns. Even after 
the Norman Conquest, William and his first succes- 
sors rested their claims on the national will. After 
the death of the Lion Heart, it was the great council 
of England, assembled at Northampton, which defi- 
nitely settled the crown on John Lackland; and at 
the coronation at Westminster the primate justified 
the exclusion of Arthur by alleging the right of the 
nation to choose, from among the royal princes, him 
who seemed to be most worthy of the sceptre. In 
Germany, after the death of the last descendant of 
the German branch of Charlemagne, an assembly of 
the lords placed Conrad I. on the throne, — subject, 
of course, as was ever the case, to confirmation by 
the Eoman Pontiff. This right to choose the em- 
peror of the Holy Roman Empire afterward passed 
to the ten, and then to the seven Electors. In France, 
from the very origin of the monarchy, the nation 
participated in the inauguration of the supreme 
power. Under the Carlovingian dynasty the sover- 
eign was proclaimed in a general assembly, and then 
raised on a buckler supported by the chiefs of the 
nation. And these notables exercised, down to the 
fall of the Merovingian dynasty, the right to depose 
unworthy kings; thus, Childeric I. was deposed 



under laws chosen by themselves, with the sovereign sanction.' 
Behold one of the thousand proofs that liberty is old and des- 
potism new. But to-day, all moral and political sense being 
lost, the name of one is bestowed on the other." ("Heretics 
of Italy," dis. viii.) 



268 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

because of his oppressions, and Ckilderic III. on 
account of imbecility. 

When Charlemagne divided his states among his 
three sons, he decreed that "if one of the three 
brothers should have a son whom the people would 
be willing to elect to the kingdom of his father, his 
uncles should consent." Similar dispositions were 
made by Louis le Debonnaire in his two successive 
divisions of the empire. When Louis le Begue was 
crowned at Compiegne, he styled himself "King, by 
the mercy of God and the choice of the people." 
On the death of Louis V., his successor by heredity 
should have been his uncle, Charles of Lorraine ; but 
as that prince had alienated the hearts of the people, 
the prelates and lords met at Senlis in 987, and gave 
the crown of Charlemagne to Hugh Capet. Nor can 
it be said that the people were ignored in all this 
development of the exercise of political right ; for 
the Third Estate — -all of the nation that was not 
clergy or nobilty*— shows itself during the Middle 
Ages ever vigorous and aggressive. In France, at 
least, the political life of the Third Estate began 
with the monarchy. After the king came his 



* Some have held that the Third Estate comprised only 
the middle class, what we now call the bourgeoisie; but this 
opinion is historically false. The ordinance of Louis XVI., 
convoking the Estates of 17S9, speaks of the immemorial right 
of attending the Third possessed by "all the inhabitants who 
are French by birth or naturalization, of twenty-five years of 
age, domiciled, and subject to taxation." 



The Middle Age Not a Starless Right. 269 



"leudes," or great vassals, who were the source of 
the nobility, or "grande noblesse;" then came the 
people, composed of freemen ("ingenui") and serfs. 
The freemen, possessors of their own lands (called 
"allodiales"), were obliged to military service. 
These men voted in the general assemblies of the 
nation or the Champs de Mars or of May. Behold 
the origin of the Third Estate. But with the twelfth 
century began the great influence of this body. 
Louis le Gros emancipated the Communes, gave 
liberty to the cities, and thus started municipal life. 
The Benedictine Abbot Suger — the greatest states- 
man of his age, who ruled France under Louis le 
Jeune, — developed these liberties, and very soon 
serfdom disappeared in the greater part of the king- 
dom. Under the Capetian kings, the Estates Gen- 
eral, properly so called, succeeded the old assemblies 
of the nation, the first solemn reunion being held 
under the arches of Notre Dame de Paris in 1302, 
and the people having their votes and colliers equally 
with the clergy and nobility. And the resolutions 
of this assembly surpass, in some respects, the mod- 
ern guarantees of constitutional government.* 

Montesquieu, that genius whom Cantu appropri- 
ately characterizes as ' 'imprisoned in his own cen- 
tury," was constrained, despite his prejudice as to 
the "barbarism" of mediaeval law, to avow that gov- 
ernment was then "well moderated;" and precisely 



* See Augustin Thierry's "Essai sur l'Histoire de la Forma- 
tion du Tiers-Etat," ch. 2, Paris, 1S53. 



270 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 

because "the civil liberties of the people, the pre- 
rogatives of the nobility and clergy, and the power 
of the sovereign, moved in concert." When even 
the positivist Augustin Thierry declares that the 
Middle Ages formed "the true epoch of freedom," 
one is prepared to hear Montalembert — who, with 
the sole exception of Cantu, penetrated the spirit 
of this calumniated period better than any other 
modern publicist — announcing his conviction that 
"the Middle Ages were the era of really representa- 
tive government, of institutions more sincerely and 
efficaciously representative than any which have 
been imagined since that time. Yes, representative 
government was born in the Middle Ages, and be- 
longs to them. It was born of a natural combination 
of the elements which then constituted society; 
it came from the common action of the Church, 
Catholic royalty, the owners of the land, and the 
emancipated municipalities." 



THE MAN WITH THE IRON MASK. 

Among the many romances which contributed, 
more than any real historical merit, to the vogue of 
Voltaire's "Age of Louis XIV.," one of the most 
famous is that of the Man with the Iron Mask. 
But in 1745, seven years before the publication of 
the cynic's much-vaunted travesty on the history of 
a great period, there had appeared at Amsterdam a 
fantastic description of the court of France, in 
which, under imaginary names, were represented 
the chief celebrities of that brilliant galaxy, a 
gloomy prominence being given to the mysterious 
man of the hidden face. This work, styled " Secret 
Memoirs in Illustration of the History of Persia," 
had been issued anonymously; but there are not 
wanting arguments to show that Voltaire, jealous 
of the fame accruing to Montesquieu from his 
"Persian Letters," was its author. Be this as it 
may, the Sage of Ferney adopted the clandestine 
writer's version of the story which then, and for 
many years afterward, agitated the curious through- 
out Europe. In his first edition of the "Age of 
Louis XIV." (two volumes in 12mo), Voltaire 
gave no details concerning the Iron Mask; but in 
the enlarged editions, issued in and after 1753, he 
spoke more explicitly than any other writer had hith- 
erto done, even drawing the portrait of the victim, 

271 



272 The Man With the Iron Mask. 

describing his mask with hinges at the mouth, and 
assigning the date of his first imprisonment and of 
his death. 

According to the fantastic ' 'Persian Memoirs," 
Shah Abas (Louis XIV.) had two sons: one legiti- 
mate, named Sephi Mirza (Louis, dauphin of 
France); and one illegitimate, Giafer (Count de 
Vermandois, by Mile, de la Valliere). These two 
princes hated each other, and one day Giafer struck 
his brother in the face. Shah Abas informed his 
council of this outrage, which, according to the 
Persian law, was punishable with death ; but it was 
resolved to send Giafer to the army, then acting on 
the frontiers of Feldran (Flandre), and to repre- 
sent him as killed; then he was to be secretly trans- 
ferred to the citadel of the island of Ormus (Isles 
Sainte-Marguerite), and there perpetually confined. 
Only one of Giafer' s servants was intrusted with this 
state secret, and he was killed by the escort during 
the journey to Ormus. The commander of Ormus 
treated his prisoner with great respect, himself bring- 
ing his meals and waiting at his table, and no other 
person was ever allowed to see his face. One day 
the prince scratched his name on a plate, and when 
the dish was handed to the commander by the slave 
who had observed the writing, the unfortunate dis- 
coverer was put to death. After many years of 
confinement at Ormus, the prisoner was transported 
to the citadel of Ispahan (the Bastile, remaining in 
charge of the same commander, now promoted tc 
the governorship of the latter fortress. Throughout 



The Man With the Iron Mash. 273 

his entire imprisonment, which lasted until his 
death, Giafer was forced to wear a mask whenever 
sickness or any other important reason compelled 
him to be seen by others than his jailer. Such per- 
sons reported that the governor always treated 
his mysterious charge with scrupulous respect, and 
that the prisoner showed great familiarity with the 
commander, always addressing him as "thou." 
The author of the "Persian Memoirs" represents 
Giafer as yet living in 1723; for he states that Ali- 
Homajou (the Duke of Orleans) died shortly after 
a visit to the prince, and we know that Orleans died 
in 1723, eight years after the death of Louis XI Y. 

Such, then, is the substance of all the legends 
concerning the Iron Mask, which have appeared 
from the "Persian Memoirs" to the famous novel 
of the elder Dumas. Louis XV. once said, when 
pressed, as he often was concerning this strange 
episode in the reign of the grand monarch : "Let 
people dispute about it; as yet no one has told the 
truth concerning it." And once, in a moment of 
confidence, he said to Laborde, his first valet de 
chambre: "You wish me to tell you something 
about the Iron Mask? Well, this much more than 
any one else you may learn : the imprisonment of 
that unfortunate hurt no one but himself." 

For many years seven theories were presented as 
to the identity of this personage. Various investi- 
gators or romancists discerned him in the Count de 
Vermandois, a natural son of Louis XIV. by Mile, 
de La Valliere ; in a son of Anne of Austria by De 



274 The Man With the Iron Mash. 

Richelieu; in the Duke of Beaufort, high-admiral 
of France, confined, it is supposed, lest he might 
have interfered with the projects of Colbert, then 
Minister of Marine; in Arwedicks, schismatic pa- 
triarch, captured and imprisoned, it was said, at 
the instigation of the Jesuits; in the Duke of 
Monmouth, not executed therefore by James II. ; 
in Henry Cromwell, second son of the Protector; 
and finally in Mattioli, secretary of the Duke of 
Mantua, whose political influence Louis XIV. feared. 
Let us briefly examine the arguments adduced for 
each of these parties. 

The theory that the Count de Yermandois was 
the Man with the Iron Mask was patronized not only 
by Voltaire, but by Griffet,* a Jesuit writer who 
had been confessor at the Bastile for nine years, 
and had enjoyed exceptional advantages as an in- 
vestigator of this question. He cites the manu- 
script Journal of Dujanca, governor of the Bastile 
in 1698, and the mortuary registers of the parish 
of St. Paul in Paris; and from these documents he 
proves that the masked prisoner arrived at the 
Bastile from Pignerol on September 18, 1698, 
and that he died on November 19, 1703. He 
leans toward the supposition that the prisoner was 
Vermandois,f merely because the date of the pre- 



* "Traits des diffe>entes sortes de preuves qui servent a 
etablir la verite dans Phistoire." Liege, 1769. 

f Griffet does not wish "to come to a decision," because of 
his uncertainty as to the date of the prisoner's arrival at Pig- 
nerol. In his day this date was unknown, but it is now cer- 
tain that it was previous to September, 1681, 



The Man With the Iron Mask, 275 

sumed death of that prince on the Flemish frontier 
coincides with the one which he fixes for the com- 
mencement of the masked person's captivity, — that 
is, 1683. But Griffet gives no reason for assigning 
this year rather than the one preferred by Voltaire, 
1661; or rather than 1669, the one adopted by 
Lagrange Chancel;* or rather than 1685, the one 
selected by Saint-Foix.f 

However, Griffet was refuted by Saint-Foix, who 
found proof in the registers of the cathedral chap- 
ter of Arras, that Louis XIV. had buried his son 
in the vault of Elizabeth de Vermandois (wife of 
Philippe d' Alsace, Count of France), who died in 
1182; while the registers of St. Paul's state that 
the masked prisoner was interred in the cemetery 
of that parish. The registers of the chapter of 
Arras show that great respect was paid to the re- 
mains of Vermandois, whereas M. de Palteau, a 
descendant of Saint-Mars (the custodian of our 
prisoner), informed Saint-Foix that it was a tradi- 
tion in his family that chemicals had been placed in 
the coffin of the unknown, for the quicker destruc- 
tion of the body. J And, what is more conclusive 
of all, there exists a letter of Barbezieux to Saint- 
Mars, written on August 13, 1691, in which the 
masked individual is described as having been 
already in the officer's custody "for twenty years;" 
whereas it is certain that the Count de Vermandois 



* "Ann^e Litteraire. 
t Idem, 1768. 
%Ib, 



276 The Man With the Iron Mash. 

died, or (according to Yoltaire and Griff et) disap- 
peared, as lately as 1683.* 

As to the theory that the mysterious personage 
was an illegitimatef son of Anne of Austria, Queen 
of Louis XIII., by the Cardinal de Eichelieu, there 
is no need to soil these pages with any detailed 
refutation. Elsewhere we have dwelt at some length 
on the character of the great statesman, and con- 
clusively shown that no valid charges have been 
brought against his moralitv; while as to the incul- 
pated Queen, not one argument has ever been 
adduced to prove either her guilt in this particular 
case, or any departure whatever from conjugal duty. 
One observation alone will suffice to relegate the 
present charge to oblivion. On November 17, 1697, 
Barbezieux wrote to . Saint-Mars that he should 
"never inform any person whomsoever as to what 
the prisoner had done." He would not have used 
such language, had the only fault of the masked 
one been that of his birth. 

In 1758, M. Lagrange-Chancel, who had been 
confined in the citadel of Sainte-Marguerite in 1718, 
and who had collected there much traditionary evi- 



* Mile, de Montpensier, a well-informed contemporary, 
narrates that the prince arrived at the camp before Courtray in 
the beginning of November, 1683; that on the 12th he was 
attacked by fever, and died on the 19th. 

t Some have made the Iron Mask a legitimate son of the 
Queen. Thus, in 1790, Soulavie published an account of two 
shepherds announcing to Louis XIII. that Anne would give 
birth to twins, whose rivolry would cause great harm to 
France; and he added that Louis imprisoned the second sou* 



The Man With the Iron Mash. 277 

dence concerning the masked prisoner detained in 
the citadel not many years before, published a refu- 
tation of the lies and errors in the ** Age of Louis 
XIV. ;" and among other things bearing on the Iron 
Mask, declared that M. de Lamotte-Guerin, governor 
of the Isles, had assured him that the prisoner was 
the Duke of Beaufort, admiral of France, generally 
supposed to have been killed at Candia, but confined 
by Colbert as a precautionary measure. But, as 
Griffet observed, Beaufort was incapable of inter- 
fering with the projects of Colbert for the good of 
his country; and even had he been so disposed, he 
had not the power, since his functions were limited 
to those of "grand master, and superintendent of 
navigation and commerce," the post of high-admiral 
having been suppressed by Eichelieu. And modern 
historians are well satisfied that Beaufort was killed 
at Candia. 

In 1825 M. de Taules published a pamphlet in 
which he accused the Jesuits of having caused the 
abduction and imprisonment, first at the Isles Sainte- 
Marguerite, and then in the Bastile, of Arwedicks, 
a schismatic patriarch, who was, he says, "a mortal 
enemy of our religion, and a cruel persecutor of the 
Armenian Catholics." De Taules identified Arwe- 
dicks with the Iron Mask, and says that he died in 
the Bastile.* But documents in the Foreign Office 



* '•L'Homme au Masque de Fer, m^moire historique oil Ton 
refute les differentes opinions relatives a ee personage mys- 
terieux et ou 1'on d^montre que ce prisonnier fut une des 
victimes des J^suites." 



278 The Man With the Iron Mash. 

at Paris prove that Arwedicks was removed from 
Turkey, ' 'during the embassy of M. Feriol at Con- 
stantinople,"* which began in 1699. Now, Saint- 
Mars brought his masked prisoner to the Bastile in 
1698, and he had already been in captivity many 
years. Again, Arwedicks joined the Roman com- 
munion, was liberated, and died in freedom.! 

The theory of Saint-Foix, identifying the mask 
with the Duke of Monmouth, a natural son of 
Charles II., decapitated for repeated rebellions, on 
July 15, 1685, obtained great favor among lovers of 
the marvellous. But how could a substitution have 
been effected successfully in the case of one con- 
demned to public execution, and whose appearance 
was so familiar to the officers and guards of the 
Tower, and to the whole people of London ? Again, 
granting this to have been possible, would not the 
existence of Monmouth, in French custody, have 
transpired after the English revolution of 1688? 
But the letter of Barbezieux to Saint-Mars in 1691, 
speaking of the latter officer's prisoner as having 
been already in his custody for twenty years, de- 
stroys the hypothesis of Saint-Foix. 

As to Henry Cromwell, second son of the Pro- 
tector, there is not a shadow of probability in favor 
of his having been the mysterious prisoner. Why 



* "M^inoire manuscrit de M. de Bonac, ambassadeur de 
France a Constantinople, 1724. " 

t Thus says the official report of his death in the archives 
of the Foreign Office. 



The Man With the Iron Mash. 279 

should the French Government have disturbed his 
repose, while allowing his brother Richard, the 
quondam successor of Oliver, perfect freedom in 
France? 

Nor can Mattioli, secretary of the Duke of Man- 
tua, have been the disputed individual; for he 
certainly died in 1681. Again, all authors agree in 
accepting the abundant and indisputable evidence 
that the famous prisoner was always treated with 
the greatest respect compatible with his isolation 
from the outside world, while the correspondence of 
the royal ministers and officers concerning Mattioli, 
is redolent of contempt for that person. Thus Cati- 
nat writes to Louvois about "that knave;" and 
Louvois admires the patience of Saint-Mars in not 
treating "that rogue as he merits, when he is want- 
ing in respect to the governor." 

Who, then, was this man with the Iron Mask? 
Yery strong, if not most conclusive, arguments are 
adduced by M. Paul Lacroix in his apposite work, 
and strengthened by Barthelemy, to show that he 
was no other than the celebrated Fouquet, superin- 
tendent of finance under Louis XIV., who was 
condemned in 1664 to perpetual imprisonment for 
malfeasance in office, peculation, and projected 
high -treason. 

Firstly, the precautions taken in guarding Fou- 
quet, while at Pignerol, were very like those used in 
regard to the masked prisoner of Sainte-Marguerite 
and the Bastile. When the Chamber of Justice had 
condemned Fouquet to perpetual exile, the King, we 



280 The Man With the Iron Mash. 

read in the "Defenses de M. Fouquet," judging 
that there "was great danger in allowing the said 
Fouquet to leave the kingdom, because of his inti- 
mate knowledge of many affairs of state," deemed 
it prudent to change the punishment to perpetual 
imprisonment. The culprit was placed in a carriage 
with four guards, and in custody of M. de Saint- 
Mars, and escorted by one hundred musketeers, was 
conducted to the castle of Pignerol. His physician 
and valet were subjected to the same confinement as 
their master, "lest they might be a means of commu- 
nication between him and his friends." And in the 
"Instruction" given to Saint-Mars for his guidance 
in the care of Fouquet, which paper was signed 
by Louis XIV. , he is forbidden to allow Fouquet 
to have any communication with any living person 
other than Saint-Mars himself, "either by speech, 
writing, or visit;" and the culprit must never leave 
his apartment, "even for a walk." Saint-Mars can 
furnish him with books, but "only one at a time; 
and he must carefully examine each book when he 
removes it, lest any writing or cipher be therein 
hidden." The prisoner, of course, was to have no 
paper, ink, etc. He could have a confessor when he 
so desired; but "the priest must be notified only 
the moment before hearing the said Fouquet, and he 
must always have a different confessor." And 
Saint-Mars was to "keep his Majesty informed as to 
what the prisoner did." Now, all these exceptional 
precautions, and those indicated in the numerous 
letters of Louvois to Saint-Mars, exactly corres* 



The Man With the Iron Mash. 281 

pond with those adopted in the case of the Iron 
Mask. 

Secondly, most of the traditions concerning this 
individual can easily be accommodated to Fouquet. 
Take, for instance, that of the plate with writing 
scratched on it, flung from a window and found by 
a slave. According to Papon,* who heard this from 
the son of one of the guards of the mask, it was not 
a plate, but a shirt, on which the prisoner had 
written "from one end to the other." Now, this 
story reminds us of two passages concerning Fou- 
quet in letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars — "I 
have received your letter, as well as the napkin on 
which M. Fouquet wrote;" and, "You may tell 
him that if he turns his table linen into writing- 
paper, he need not be surprised if you give him no 
more." Again, all the tokens of respect, the many 
courtesies of refinement, the elegant furniture, etc., 
accorded to the myterious man of Sainte-Marguerite 
and the Bastile were extended to Fouquet at Pig- 
nerol. 

Thirdly, it is far from certain that Fouquet died 
in 1680, as was reported. The contradictions of 
his contemporaries on this subject are strange, and 
there is an almost entire absence of documentary 
evidence. 

Fourthly, political reasons might have easily 
induced Louis XIV. to cause the spread of a 
report of the death of Fouquet. It has been the 



"Voyage en Provence. 



282 The Man With the Iron Mask. 

fashion among most modern historians to sym- 
pathize with, if not to laud, Fouquet as much 
as they have decried his successor, Colbert. The 
modern "liberal" school could not be expected 
to see willingly any good in him who was be- 
queathed to his sovereign by the dying Mazarin, 
any more than they do in the latter, recommended 
as his own successor by the moribund Eichelieu. 
But an inspection of the report of Fouquet' s 
trial must satisfy any impartial mind that the 
famous superintendent merited the extreme dis- 
pleasure of Louis XIV. as a reckless prodigal of 
the public money, and an arch-conspirator against 
the crown. 

Another reason for the monarch's aversion is 
sometimes found in the supposed audacity of 
Fouquet in pretending to rival Louis in the af- 
fections of Mile, de La Valliere; but that view 
of the character of the grand monarch, which 
ever espies the lover behind the king, is essen- 
tially absurd. One need only read that criminating 
document, written entirely by the hand of Fouquet, 
and found hidden at the back of a mirror in his 
apartment, to become convinced of his transcendent 
guilt. "In reading this paper," says the impartial 
Peter Clement,* "one can not tell whether he 
should be more astonished at the extraordinary 
levity of the writer, or at his seemingly ingenuous 
confidence in the devotion to himself of those men 



•Histoire de Colbert." 



The Man With the Iron Mash. 283 

whom he had deluged in money, or at the crazy 
notion he had conceived as to his own importance 
in the state. ... In every line is evidence of his 
malfeasance, of his abuse of the public treasury in 
order to attach creatures to himself to the injury 
of the state, and of his programme of civil war."* 
In consigning Fouquet to perpetual imprisonment, 
Louis XIV. executed a judicious stroke of states- 
manship ; and if, as we suppose, he gave out that 
the still influential criminal had died, he deprived 
the opposition cliques of their most powerful pre- 
text. 

Fifthly, Saint-Mars and Louvois, whenever writ- 
ing about Fouquet before the date of his alleged 
death, always use the same significant phrase, "my" 



* Among the papers of Fouquet was found the following 
document: "I promise to give my loyalty to Monseigneur 
the Procurator-General, Superintendent of Finances, and 
Minister of State; to belong to no person hut himself, giving 
myself and attaching myself to him with my utmost zeal, and 
promising to serve him in all things, against every person with- 
out exception; and to obey no person but him; and to hold no 
relations with any whom he may prohibit to me, and to resign 
the post of Concarneau, which he has given to me, whenever 
he may demand it. I promise to sacrifice my life for him, 
against all whom he may name, be they of any quality or condi- 
tion whatever, without excepting any person in the world. As as- 
surance of this I give these presents, written and signed by 
my hand. Done at Paris, June 2, 1658, Deslandes." Deslan- 
des was commander of the citadel of Concarneau, which be- 
longed to Fouquet. But the document which ruined Fouquet 
was nothing less than a detailed plan of rebellion, addressed 
to his friends, and to be actuated in case Cardinal Mazarin, 
then become suspicious of Fouquet's honesty, and designing 
to substitute Colbert in his place, should order his arrest. 



284 The Man With the Iron Mash, 

or "your prisoner," although the former had many 
other prisoners in charge; and after the first appa- 
rition of the mask, both Louvois and Barbezieux 
adopt this phrase. 

As to the death of the mysterious prisoner, we 
learn from the diary of M. Dujunca that it oc- 
curred on November 19, 1703, and that he was 
buried on November 20, in the cemetery of St. 
Paul's. The parochial register states that "on No- 
vember 19, 1703, Marchialy, aged about forty-five 
years, died in the Bastile, and his body was interred 
in the cemetery of St. Paul's, his parish." Mar- 
chialy is the name by which tradition has nearly 
always described this personage, but why we can 
not discover. It is certain, however, that in those 
days, as in ours, prisoners were generally called by 
other names than their own, and that these pseudo- 
nyms were frequently changed, in the case of state 
offenders, to baffle the schemes of their friends. 

When the Bastile fell into the hands of the 
raging mob, on July 14, 1789, search was made 
at once for some evidence as to the identity of 
the masked charge of Saint-Mars. A periodical 
of the day informs us that there was found 
a paper marked 61,389,000, and the words, 
"Foucquet,* coming from the Isles Sainte-Mar- 
guerite, with an iron mask." Then followed, 
X. X. X., and underneath, "Kersadion." When 
this discovery was made known, people recalled 
to mind a saying in the supplement to the "Age 



* So the name was written in those days. 



The Man With the Iron Mash. 285 

of Louis XIV.," to the effect that Chamillart, 
Minister of State, had said that the Iron Mask 
"was a man who possessed all the secrets of 
Fouquet." Unfortunately, however, for any pros- 
pect of certainty in the question we have been 
examining, the interesting paper just mentioned no 
longer exists.* 



* Drawing attention to the contradictions of contempora- 
ries concerning the death of Fouquet, and commenting on 
Louvois' acknowledgment, only on April 3, of Saint-Mars' 
letter of information, whereas Mme. de Sevigne" knew of the 
event several days before, Paul Lacroix asks how the special 
despatches of the state were over fourteen days on the road, 
while the postal courier of Pignerol covered the route in less 
than eight days. And how can we explain the silence of the 
"Mercure Galant," a journal most precise in recording the 
principal deaths of every month? A strange death, says La- 
croix, which occurred at Pignerol on March 23, and was known 
at Paris on the 25th. "And not an authentic document to es- 
tablish the death of a man whose fortune and disgrace had 
caused such wonder! Nothing to impose silence on the ru- 
mors ever insinuating crime when death in a state-prison is 
mysterious! Only an enigmatical despatch of the Minister of 
War, the transmission of a coffin, and an extract from a con- 
vent register showing a burial a year afterward!" Is it not 
strange that Lafontaine, who could so plaintively lament the 
fall of "Oronte," had no regrets for his Maecenas? asks Bar- 
thelemy. And Gourville, who kept up a correspondence with 
his friend Fouquet to the very last, makes no mention of the 
time or place of his death. Even the family of Fouquet were 
uncertain as to his end. Nor can we forget that the diary of 
M. Dujunca informs us that "the olden prisoner whom 
Saint-Mars had guarded at Pignerol" was yet in that fortress 
at the end of August, 1681, when Saint-Mars passed as gover- 
nor to Exiles, seventeen months after the presumed death of 
Fouquet, taking with him the Iron Mask and one other pris- 
oner, whose name we ignore. Nor is it insignificant that 
whereas Louvois uses the phrase "the deceased M. Fouquet," 
when writing to Saint-Mars during the month after the al- 
leged death, he ever after omits that qualification. 



THE HOLY WARS: THEIR OBJECT AND 
RESULTS. 

During the first years of Islamism the Christian 
nations felt little reason for concern as to their 
own future. Regarding the new religionists as a 
mere horde of children of the desert, they could not 
realize that their own peace, still less their indepen- 
dence in the political order, would ever be seriously 
threatened from that quarter. And even if they had 
foreseen the great spread of Mohammedanism, and 
all the baneful consequences thence, of necessity, to 
ensue, they were just then in no condition to fore- 
stall the enemy's attack. As yet Christendom was 
not united in the Western Empire, and when, in 
time, that effort of pontifical statesmanship opened 
a new era of strength and prosperity to Europe, the 
arrogance, and afterward the schism, of the Greeks 
prevented any unanimous action against the enemies 
of the Christian name. But in the eleventh century, 
the invasion of the Seljuk Turks, who had abandoned 
the religion of Zoroaster for Islamism, infused a 
northern ferocity into the comparatively soft nature 
of the Arabs, and during the pontificate of St. Gre- 
gory VII. the Crescent was frequently seen from 
the towers of Constantinople. From time to time 
Europe was horrified by accounts of the fearful 

286 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 287 

oppression endured by the Christians of Palestine; 
of bishops and priests being dragged from the altar 
to prison ; of brutal outrages upon persons of both 
sexes and of every age. 

The schismatic arrogance of the Greeks was 
compelled to yield, and the Emperor Michael Ducas 
(Parapinax) begged for aid from the detested 
Latins. St. Gregory VII. heeded the cry, and, 
although he knew that the promise was extorted by 
dire temporal necessity, and not by regard for 
religious unity, he was disposed to believe that 
Ducas was sincere in the avowed intention to put an 
end to the schism. All Christendom was invited to 
raise an army for the service of God, and the Pontiff 
declared in a letter to King Henry IV. of Germany 
that he hoped, * 'having pacified the Normans, to 
himself proceed to Constantinople, in aid of the 
Christians." Fifty thousand warriors promised to 
follow him, but other interests prevailed, and the 
great enterprise was postponed, until Pope Victor 
III. had the satisfaction, in 1088, of seeing the 
Genoese, Pisans, and other Italians, receive from 
his hands the standard of St. Peter, and set out to 
fight for the Cross and for civilization. This first 
expedition to check the inroads of Mohammedanism 
was comparatively successful. Landing in Africa, 
it destroyed or disabled more than a hundred thou- 
sand Saracens, burned a city, imposed tribute on a 
Moorish king, and returned to Italy with many rich 
spoils, which were used to decorate the churches of 
the victors.* But this inroad into the domains of 

* Leo of Ostia (Marsicanns) : in Baronio, 



288 The Holy Wars : Their Object and Results. 

Islam was merely a prelude to the great Cru- 
sades. 

The impulse to the first Crusade (1096-1100) 
was given by an obscure individual, rude in feature 
and in manner, but who had been raised by solitude 
and prayer to such sanctity, that he was popularly 
supposed to enjoy direct communication with Heaven . 
Known only as Peter the Hermit, he left his native 
Amiens in 1093, and made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
Touched to the quick by the melancholy condition 
of the holy places, he seemed to hear, while pros- 
trate before the Holy Sepulchre, the voice of Jesus 
commanding: "Arise, Peter; go and announce to 
My people the end of their oppression. Let My 
servants come, and the Holy Land shall be freed." 
He returned to Europe, and falling at the feet of 
Pope Urban II., he urged that Pontiff to carry out 
the design of his predecessors. The Pope blessed 
him, and commissioned him to preach a Crusade; 
he did "so throughout Europe, travelling barefooted 
and bareheaded, clothed in sackcloth, crucifix in 
hand, and mounted on a mule. William of Tyre 
(ob. about 1180) tells us that Peter was "insig- 
nificant in person, but his eye was keen and pleas- 
ing, and he possessed an easy flow of eloquence/' 
Everywhere he astonished people by his austerities, 
and moved their sympathies by his graphic picture 
of the woes of Palestine. He cried to sinners : 
"Soldiers of the demon, become warriors of Christ ;" 
and all who had crimes to expiate or injuries to 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 289 

repair seized on this means of reconciling them- 
selves with God. The feudatories, the younger 
sons of reigning families (all trained to war, and 
having scarcely any other means of occupying their 
time), joyfully volunteered. 

While Peter was thus engaged, there came from 
Constantinople letters from the Greek Emperor, 
Alexis Comnenus, begging aid from the Latins, as 
the "new Rome" was in imminent danger of falling 
into the hands of its enemies. In 1095 Urban II. 
convoked a council at Piacenza to devise ways and 
.means. Over 200 bishops, 4,000 priests, and 30,000 
laymen, listened to the Pontiff's discourse, which 
was delivered in the open air. Another assembly 
was ordered to convene at Clermont in Auvergne, 
and on November 18 of the same year, 238 bishops 
obeyed the summons. Here the Pontiff made use 
of every argument, religious and political, to further 
the cause. From his discourse, not as embellished 
by Michaud, but as it was recorded in its simplicity 
by William of Malmesbury,* who was present at its 
delivery, we take the following passages : 

"Go, my brothers, go with confidence to attack 
the enemies of God, who — oh, shame to Christians ! 
— are so long in possession of Syria and Armenia. 
Long since they mastered all Asia Minor; and now 
they have insulted us in Illyria and all the neighbor- 
ing regions, even so far as the Straits of St. George. 
And they have done worse : they have robbed us of 



"Deeds of the English Kings," b. 4, y. 1095. 



290 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 

the tomb of Jesus Christ, that wonderful monument 
of our faith ; they sell to our pilgrims permission to 
enter a city which would be open to Christians alone, 
if we had only a little of our ancient valor. Ought 
not our faces to be suffused with blushes of shame? 
Who, unless they who envy the Christian glory, can 
suffer the indignity of not being able to share with 
the infidels at least a half of the world ? Christians, 
put an end to your own misdeeds, and let concord 
reign among you while in these distant lands. Go, 
then, and in this most noble enterprise show the 
valor and prudence, you now display in your intes- 
tine contests. Go, ye warriors, and your praises will 
everywhere be heard. Let the well-known bravery 
of the French be shown in the van ; followed by the 
allies, their very name will terrify the enemy. . . 9 
If necessary, your bodies will redeem your souls. 

"Do you, men of courage and of exemplary intre- 
pidity, fear death ? Human wickedness can invent 
nothing to injure you which is to be compared with 
celestial glory. Do you not know that life is a 
misery to man, and that happiness is in death ? The 
sermons of priests have caused us to receive this 
doctrine with our mother's milk; and the martyrs, 
our ancestors, sustained this doctrine with their 
example. . . . The sanctuary of God repels the 
spoiler and the ribald, and welcomes the pious man. 
Let not the love of your relatives impede you ; prin- 
cipally to God does man owe his love. Let not your 
progress be arrested by your affection for your native 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 291 

land; for the entire world may be regarded as a 
place of exile for Christians, and their country as the 
entire world. Let no one remain at home because 
of his riches ; for greater wealth is promised him — a 
wealth composed, not of those things which soften 
our misery only with vain expectation, but of those 
which perpetual and daily instances show us are the 
only true riches. . . . These things I publish and 
command, and for their execution I appoint the end 
of the coming spring." 

Throughout the assembly was then heard the cry 
which the Crusaders were to render famous, "God 
wills it ! " A cardinal recited the formula of general 
confession ; all repeated it, and received absolution. 
Admar de Monteil, Bishop of Puy, received the 
cross as Papal Legate, and this emblem of the Cru- 
sade was then given to nearly all the barons and 
even to many bishops. 

The first Crusade lasted from 1096 to 1100; the 
second, from 1147 to 1149 ; the third, from 1189 to 
1193; the fourth, from 1202 to 1204; the fifth and 
sixth, from 1218 to 1239 ; the seventh and eight, 
from 1248 to 1270. Frequent attempts were after- 
wards made to renew these holy wars, and many 
isolated expeditions were undertaken ; but, as Poni- 
ponne, Minister of Louis XIV., remarked to Leib- 
nitz, "since the time of St. Louis, such things have 
been out of fashion." Bacon wrote a dialogue on 
the Holy War. Mazarin left 600,000 livres to help 
a Crusade. The famous Friar Joseph, the Francis- 



292 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 

can counsellor of Kichelieu, composed on this sub- 
ject a Latin poem which Pope Urban VIII. called 
the Christian iEneid. In 1670 Leibnitz tried to in- 
duce Louis XIV. to conquer Egypt, and in his de- 
sign, reduced to writing, he said: 

4 'Then Europe will rest, will cease to tear her own 
bowels, and will fix her attention where she may find 
honor, victory, advantage, and wealth, with a good 
conscience, and in a manner pleasing to God. Then 
men will not rival one another in robbery, but in 
reducing the power of the hereditary foe ; each one 
will strive to extend, not his own kindgdom, but that 
of Christ. . . . Let us suppose that the Emperor, 
Poland, and Sweden, proceed together against the 
barbarians, and seek to widen the limits of Christen- 
dom, having no other designs, and fearing no en- 
emies in their rear: how the blessing of God would 
show itself in favor of so just a cause! On the 
other hand, England and Denmark would find them- 
selves in front of North America; Spain, before 
South ; Holland, before the West Indies. France is 
destined by Providence to be the guide to Christian 
armies in the East, to give to Christendom her 
Godfreys, her Baldwins, and especially her SS. 
Louis, who will invade that Africa just opposite her 
shores, to destroy a nest of pirates and to conquer 
Egypt — she wants neither the soldiers nor the 
money necessary to become the mistress of that 
land. . . . Behold a way to acquire a lasting 
glory, a tranquil conscience, universal applause, 
certain victory, immense advantages. Then will 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 293 

be attained that hope of the philosopher, that men 
will make war only on wolves and other wild beasts, 
to which the barbarians and infidels may now be 
compared."* 

Those who desire, in the matter of the Crusades, 
details of fact, causes, and effects, should consult 
the "Deeds of Grod through the Franks," by William 
of Tyre ; and the history written by the Imperial 
Anna Comnena. Among moderns we may read 
with profit the "Spirit of the Crusades," by De- 
Maillet; and the "History of the Crusades," by 
Michaud, which, although full of prejudice, is the 
most complete of all works on this subject. Much 
information may also be gained from the "Life of 



* Dissertation by Guhrauer, in "Memoires of the Institute of 
France," Vol. I. — Cantu agrees with Leibnitz : "Suppose that 
the lion of St. Mark and the dragon of St. George had made a 
permanent home on the banks of the Bosphorus, the Jordan, 
and the Tigris. A civilized population would now enjoy that 
beauty which of old made them envied centres of culture; 
Seleucia, Antioch, Bagdad, would be the London and Paris of 
Asia; where now a pasha, with flail and scimitar, bends the 
peoples before the caprices of a despot, and where the Bedou- 
ins practise robbery and piracy with impunity, would now 
flourish governments founded in order and liberty; from the 
most beautiful city under the sun would flow streams of culture 
and of love over Asia and Europe, united in affection and in 
progress, to improve the North, and spread the light of truth 
in the heart of Africa and in the farthest regions of the East. 
If a hermit had not raised that cry, if the Popes had not taken 
it up, the growing civilization of Europe would have suc- 
cumbed to the Arabs; the religion of love and of liberty would 
have yielded up our countries to one of blood and of slavery, 
and over the beautiful lands of Italy and France would reign 
a brutal domestic and political tyranny, a haughty immobility, 
a fatal indifference, a systematic ignorance." 



294 T J ie Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 

Innocent III.," by Hurler; and from Prat's "Peter 
the Hermit and the First Crusade." The French 
Academy of Inscriptions published, in 1841, a col- 
lection of all the Latin, Greek, and Oriental histo- 
rians of the Crusades; the Greek portion being 
composed of fragments of Nicephorus Briennius, 
Anna Comnena, Nicetas Coniates, John Phocas, 
and Michael Attaliates. As for the modern English 
authors who have written on the Crusades, some are 
pretentious, few recommendable. Of all who, in 
any language, have treated this subject, Cantu is the 
most impartial, and the most appreciative of the 
spirit which prompted and sustained one of the most 
salient features of the Middle Age; he will also 
fully satisfy the reader's curiosity as to chivalry, 
tournaments, "courts of love," the oaths customary 
at the time, the military religious orders, the trova 
tori — an acquaintance with all of which matters 
will greatly facilitate a comprehension of the events 
of the Crusades. 

Many causes have contributed to an unjust appre- 
ciation of the value of the Crusades, but they may 
be all referred to the difficulty experienced by the 
average modern mind in understanding the spirit of 
the Middle A^e. Add to this the fact that these 
Holy Wars were pre-eminently the work of the 
Roman Pontiffs, and, therefore, a natural object of 
carping criticism to all the foes of Catholicism, and 
you will be surprised when you find, now and then, 
a Protestant or an infidel writer who can see in 
them aught else but cruel injustice to both Christian 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 295 

and Islamite ; or, at best, anything better than sub- 
lime folly. In defending the policy that prompted 
these Crusades, in upholding their justice, in con- 
tending that they were necessary, humanly speaking, 
to the very existence of Christianity, we do not 
apologize for each and every action of their leaders, 
or of the rank and file of their participants ; it is 
but too true that, as in other noble designs, many 
of the instruments were found to be full of flaws. 
We must distinguish the motives of the Crusaders. 
The Popes, most of the kings and princes, and 
nearly all the leaders, who took part in these expe- 
ditions, were impelled by the desire of banishing 
the infidel from the places sanctified by the life and 
death of the God-Man — by the desire of freeing a 
Christian people from a slavery that was cruel to 
the body and threatening to the soul. They felt the 
necessity of arresting the progress of an inexorable 
and barbarous enemy, who was menacing that 
Christian civilization which the Catholic Church had 
developed in nearly the whole, and was then plant- 
ing in the rest, of Europe ; they knew that the most 
efficacious means of doing this was by carrying war 
into Asia and Africa, by convincing Islam that 
Christendom could fight as well as pray. These 
motives were certainly noble. But among the masses, 
while the religious motive undoubtedly predominated 
with the immense majority, so that it may truly be 
said to have furnished the life and soul of the expe- 
ditions, other motives were sometimes mingled — 



296 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 

some of them base, some indifferent. Many who 
groaned at home under the feudal system hoped to 
find another lot awaiting them in the East; some 
were impelled by a curiosity to see those lands about 
which pilgrims had told such wonderful stories; 
some, undoubtedly, were incited by mere love of 
adventure. If these latter classes were guilty of 
excesses — nay, if even some of the leaders acted 
more like condottieri than like soldiers of Christ — 
the good name of the cause should not suffer. 

Those who affect horror at the sacrifice of two 
millions of Christian lives during the two centuries 
of the Crusades, do not, as a general thing, descant 
upon the great loss of life that purely secular wars 
have entailed, and yet entail, upon mankind. And 
how great is the difference between these and the 
Holy Wars, both as to causes and effects ! In the 
former, in nearly every case, men are taken from 
their firesides to kill and be killed without knowing 
the reason for it ; in the latter, they knew, thoroughly 
appreciated, and heartily applauded the reason . But, 
we are told, this knowledge, this appreciation, was 
that of superstition, and the hope of success was a 
folly. The Crusaders were certainly guilty of super- 
stition, if a vivid and life-sacrificing devotion to our 
faith, if a hearty reverence for everything connected 
with that faith, be superstition. "We need not pause 
here to show that Christianity, felt and outwardly 
professed, is not superstition. 

But what about the folly of these wars? Not 
that supernatural effervescence which is known as 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 297 

the folly of the Cross — for if that be understood, 
the Crusades were a folly — but a sheer absurdity is 
here intended. Well, now that the holy fever is at 
an end, and we can calmly criticise each and every 
one of its symptoms and consequences, many errors 
of management are discoverable; but at the time 
the attack on the strongholds of Islam was decreed, 
every reason, military and political, could be adduced 
for the success of the project. Common sense 
assured the Western nations that the Byzantine 
Emperor, bearing, as he did, the first brunt of the 
Mussulman attack, would cordially and gratefully 
assist the enterprise ; who could have foreseen the 
insane treachery of the entire schismatic tribe? 

But what of the justice of the Crusades? The 
Islamites were pronounced religious and political 
enemies of the European nations. It was of the 
very essence of their religion — and too well did 
they practise it — to spread their faith by fire and 
sword, to enjoy the earth and its fullness. They 
had already subjugated the once flourishing Chris- 
tian states of the East, and in many of them had 
almost destroyed every vestige of the Christian 
religion; they had conquered a great part of the 
Iberian Peninsula; they had devastated a large 
portion of Italy, and, for a time, had even threat- 
ened France; in fine, to the Mussulman every war 
against a Christian state or community Was holy. 
Where was the injustice of warring against such 
a race of men ? Consider also that war, and war 



298 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 

a Voutrance, was the only means by which Europe 
could save herself from barbarism, her women from 
degradation, her children from slavery. 

Our age affects to detest mere sentiment, and 
is pre-eminently utilitarian. For this very reason 
it should admire the Crusades. The first great 
advantage they brought to Europe was frequent 
internal peace where intestine war had been the 
order of the day; the Christian swords that had 
so often crossed one another in unworthy strife 
were now turned against the common enemy of the 
Christian altar and of every Christian government. 
The Normans and other ferocious Northerners, 
who would have impeded the progress of civilization 
along the shores of the Baltic and the German 
Ocean, found an outlet for their warklike enthusiasm 
in distant Asia; and "this expedition" (the second 
Crusade) says Krantz ("Sax.," c. 13) "at least 
effected the freeing of Germany from a set of men 
who lived by robbing others." Many a district 
hitherto living in awe of some petty tyrant, who, 
like an eagle from his eyry, had been wont to 
pounce down upon it on an errand of rapine, 
thanked the campaigns of Asia and Africa for 
affording such men an opportunity of satisfying 
their tastes away from home. Thousands of serfs, 
by taking the Cross, threw off the yoke of what 
was little less than slavery; for the Crusader be- 
came a servant of God and of the Church, and 
a freeman. Strangers who took up their abode in 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Be suits. 299 

the domains of some petty lord, used to become his 
serfs : now the pilgrim was sacred. 

Industry was advanced by means of the Crusades. 
The silks of Damascus were coveted by the West- 
erns, and Palermo, Lucca, Modena, and Milan be- 
came noted for the fabrics they wove for the lords 
and ladies who were no longer satisfied with the 
skins of beasts for clothing. The glassware of 
Tyre was introduced by the Venetians, and soon the 
ingenious sons of the Republic manufactured the 
beautiful and delicate crystals which have given 
its artisans celebrity to our own day. Wind-mills, 
till then not used, if at all known, in Europe, 
were copied from those in Asia Minor, where they 
were necessary, owing to the want of running 
waters. The goldsmith's art received an impetus 
from the numerous relics and gems brought from 
the Orient, and which had to be richly set and 
mounted. 

Another advantage of the Crusades was the bet- 
ter administration of justice; when intestine war 
had become rare, order reappeared ; the great ones 
of the earth commenced to consider their followers 
as their poor ones — pauperes nostri, — for these in- 
feriors were now freed from local servitude, and 
began to unlearn the customs of hereditary serf- 
dom. Grovernment was better developed; com- 
munes and republics came into existence, and gave 
equal laws even to the lands of the absent barons, 
elevating public over private power. The common 



300 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results, 

people, during the long absences of the lords, de- 
pended upon the superior power of the kings; and 
thus was prepared, for the ultimate good of the na- 
tion, the fall of feudalism. The royal authority 
was constantly being increased by the acquisition of 
fiefs, either made vacant by death, or sold to the 
crown that their lords might obtain money for the 
Holy Wars. 

Still another advantage of the Crusades is thus 
described by Cantu: "In the fragmentary society 
of feudalism, each one's country was bounded by 
the hedge that inclosed his field ; it was expensive 
and dangerous to cross the bridge that spanned 
the neighboring little torrent, in sight of the 
castle of the next proprietor. But suddenly the 
barriers fall, and whole nations enter on roads 
hitherto closed. Then the Northerners beheld in 
Italy, the relics of ancient, and the commencement 
of a new, civilization; at Bologna, they heard 
lectures on the Pandects; at Salerno and Monte 
Cassino, they attended medical academies; atThes- 
salonica, they visited schools of fine art; at Con- 
stantinople, they inspected libraries and museums. 
James de Vitry expresses his wonder at finding 
the Italians 'secret in counsel, diligent, studious, 
of public utility, careful for the future, detesting 
the yoke of another, ardent defenders of their 
liberties.' In Sicily and in Venice, whither they 
came to embark, they found more regular forms 
of government, and their astonishment on seeing 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 301 

all the citizens of Venice convoked to give assent 
to the decree of the doge, inspired ideas of a 
liberty very different from the German. When 
they were established on the new soil, they gave 
attention to a proper jurisprudence, which should 
not be imposed by force, but should be discussed 
by the reason of nations who deemed themselves 
equal, and who desired their own real advancement. 
The 'Assizes' that were then compiled became 
models for princes and communes; St. Louis 
profited by them for his 'Establishments,' and 
perhaps the English found in them the idea of 
their boasted jury. From the method of gathering 
tithes, then imposed by the Church, kings learned 
a regular system of taxes, which, if they became 
perpetual, at least ceased to be arbitrary and 
multifold." 

With reference to the effects which the Crusades 
produced on the arts and letters of Europe, the 
same author says: "Since it is certain that the 
Crusades retarded the fall of Constantinople, I 
believe that literature profited by them ; for Europe 
was not yet sufficiently mature to receive the clas- 
sics there preserved, as she did in the fifteenth cen- 
tury. In fact, of two rich libraries which then 
perished, no chronicler makes any mention, of so 
little account were they deemed; masterpieces of 
art were brutally ruined, unless when the Italians, 
especially the Venetians, preserved them to dec- 
orate their own cities. Look at Pisa, Genoa, and 



302 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 

the Norman edifices in Italy, and you will find 
them rich in columns and statues transferred from 
the East, — a fact which reveals a resurrection of 
the sentiment of the beautiful, and explains the 
sudden development of the arts among us. Liter- 
ature came forth from the sanctuary when all took 
part in universal enterprises; style was elevated 
when history passed from municipal events to prod- 
igies of valor; poetry found in reality that at which, 
by mere imagination, it would never have arrived."* 
The Crusades were also of great benefit to com- 
merce. The commercial cities of Italy made im- 
mense profits by transporting warriors and pilgrims ; 
and they obtained great privileges in the conquered 
lands, establishing banks in Syria and along the 
Ionian and the Black Sea. Then began the com- 
mercial prosperity of what are now Belgium and 
Holland, of the south of France, of Bremen and 
Lubeck. Citizens became wealtlry, and were soon 
so powerful that they were able to exact rights and 
privileges. The sugar cane used by the Crusaders 
at Lebanon to assuage their terrible thirst, was 
transplanted to Sicily, thence carried by the Sara- 
cens to Granada, and from there taken by the Span- 
iards to America. Europe became acquainted with 
alum, indigo, and many other valuable drugs and 
spices; afterwards, while engaged in a search for a 
quick passage to the land that produced them, an 
Italian navigator discovered a new world. 



* "Storia Univ.," b. xii, c. 18. 



The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 303 

The Crusades failed of their main object — the 
freedom of the Holy Land, — but they checked the 
progress of Mohammedanism, and permitted the 
continuance of the work of civilization in Europe. 
They need no apology ; had they fully succeeded, 
Europe, Asia, and Africa would now, in all prob- 
ability, be entirely Christian. Their main idea was 
both politic and just. It was certainly good policy 
to give rest to a state by transporting its disturbers 
beyond the seas ; to turn this fury against the bar- 
barians. It was certainly just to combat a ferocious 
people, an article of whose religion was to exter- 
minate Christians, and who had already ravaged all 
Southern Europe.* 



* Was not that system of solidarity, which in the Middle 
Age bound the Catholic nations together by the principles of 
a common faith, at least as just and respectable as that modern 
international solidarity, styled European balance of power, 
which is based on a shifting policy, and on merely earthly in- 
terests? Ottoman barbarism everywhere rampant under the 
Crescent; Christian civilization on the defensive under the 
Cross; Islamism menacing the world with its impure torrents, 
and Christianity striking home at its implacable enemy — be- 
hold, in its most natural and philosophical aspect, the entire 
history of the Crusades. (Berault: "Hist. Gen. de l'Eglise," 
vol. xii, p. 596.) 






THE "ORTHODOX" RUSSIAN, AND THE 
SCHISMATIC GREEK CHURCHES. 

The Atlantic cable informs us that "the Pope 
and the Czar are negotiating with a view to the 
reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches; and 
that, as the Pope is willing to let the Greek Church 
retain its own manner of worship, it is expected 
that the negotiations will be successful."* Good 
news certainly, and most consoling, if the history 
of past "negotiations" did not warn us not to be 
over sanguine as to the result of future ones. 

In many minds the Russian, or, as it styles itself, 
the "orthodox" Church, is synonymous with the 
schismatic Greek Church ; but it is not schismatic 
Greek in origin, nor is it Greek in language, polity, 
or government. The schismatic Greek Church is 
composed of those Christians who recognize the 
spiritual jurisdiction of the Greek Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, and is confined to the territories once 
embraced in the Byzantine (now known as the 
Ottoman) Empire,! with its vassal (now only quasi 
vassal) States — Egypt, Nubia, etc. The Russian 
Church communicates with the schismatic Greek 



* June, 1887. 

f In 1833 the hierarchy of the new Kingdom of Greece de- 
clared its independence of the patriarch, and in 1868 that pre- 
late recognized its autonomy. 

304 



The Russian and Greek Churches. 305 

and, in spite of its own liturgy, which stoutly asserts 
the primacy of the Roman See,* agrees with the 
schismatic Greeks in rejecting the authority of the 
Roman Pontiff ; but it is, in every respect, a national 
church. It recognizes no earthly authority over 
itself but that of the "Holy Synod," a body en- 
tirely dependent on the Czar. Originally, the 
metropolitan of Russia was nominated by the sover- 
eign, and consecrated by the Constantinopolitan 
patriarch; but after the schism the czars began 
to act, more and more, as heads of the Church. 
In 1589, the Patriarch Jeremiah II. recognized Job, 
metropolitan of Moscow, as Patriarch of Russia, 
and as next in rank to him of Alexandria. In the 
reign of Alexis Michaelovitch, father of Peter the 
Great, Nikon of Moscow rejected the authority of 
Constantinople ; and in 1667, Nikon having offended 
Alexis, he was deposed, and the power of his suc- 
cessors became nominal. Peter the Great finally, 
in 1721, placed the government of the Russian 
Church in a "Holy Synod," every member of which 
swears obedience to the Czar as "supreme judge in 
this spiritual assembly." 

* The Russian liturgical books, written in Old Slavonic, are 
full of such testimonies. Thus, Pope St. Sylvester is called 
"the divine head of the holy bishops." Pope St. Leo I. is 
styled "the successor of St. Peter on the highest throne, 
the heir of the impregnable rock." To Pope St. Martin is 
said: "Thou didst adorn the divine throne of Peter, and, 
holding the church upright on this rock which cannot be 
shaken, thou didst honor thy name." Pope St. Leo III. is 
thus addressed: "Chief pastor of the Church, fill the place of 
Jesus Christ." St. Peter is called the sovereign pastor of all 
the Apostles — "pasty!* vladytchnyi vsich Apostolov," 



306 The Russian and Greek Churches. 

The language of the Eussian Church is not the 
Greek, but the Slavonic; and not the vernacular, 
but the Old Slavonic, with which the people are 
not familiar. Protestants are much mistaken when, 
reading that the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, etc., cele- 
brate their services in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc., 
they imagine they discover an example for their own 
use of the vernacular. The languages used in the 
rituals of these peoples are very different from those 
in daily use. Nor do the Russians owe their con- 
version to the Greek schismatic Church. This 
conversion was effected by the Roman Catholic 
Apostolic Church ; for whether, as we learn from 
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the first missionaries 
to Russia were sent by the Catholic Patriarch Igna- 
tius (867), or, as Nestor asserts, they were sent by 
the schismatic Photius (866), it is certain that no 
real impression was made upon the Russian masses 
until toward the end of the tenth century,* when 
the Grand Duke Vladimir, called "the Apostolic," 
embraced Christianity ; and at that time the Greeks 
were in communion with Rome. The revival of 
the schism, by Michael Cerularius, did not much 



* About the year 945 Olha, Olga, or Elga, widow of a grand 
duke (or king) of Russia, made a journey to Constantinople, 
and was there baptized. Returning to Russia, she vainly 
endeavored to convert her countrymen. But her grandson, 
Vladimir, having married Anna, sister of the Greek Emperor 
Basil II., was baptized in 988, and in a few years nearly all the 
Russians received the Faith. Those authors who assign the 
conversion of Russia to the ninth century, remarks Bergier, 
confuse the reign of Basil II. with that of Basil the Macedo- 
nian. 



The Russian and Greek Churches. 307 

affect the Eussians. Not until the twelfth century 
were they entirely seduced from the Roman obe- 
dience. Then, with the exception of the Church 
of Galicia,* most of the Russians ceased to be 
Catholics. However, at the time of the Council 
of Florence (1439) there were as many Catholics as 
schismatics in Russia. (Bollandists: "Septem- 
ber," v. 41.) About the middle of the fifteenth 
century, a second Photius, Archbishop of Kiev, ex- 
tended the schism throughout the land. 

Some authors opine that the schism of Cerularius 
did not aif ect even the entire Greek Empire in the 
eleventh century. Certainly, Pope Alexander II. 
sent Peter, Bishop of Anagni, as apocrisiarius 
(agent, not legate) to the Emperor Michael Ducas 
in 1071, and he continued as such for a whole year. 
When, in 1078, St. Gregory VII. excommunicated 
Nicephorus Botoniates, it was only because of his 
having dethroned Ducas, who was in communion 
with the Holy See. Pope Paschal II. sent Chryso- 
lanus (or, as some write the name, Grosolanus, or 
Proculanus) as legate to Alexis Comnenus. Alex- 
andre and Mansi hold that there was communion 
between the West and East for some time after the 
excommunication of Cerularius and his pretended 
retaliation of the same. It is noteworthy that 



* The Catholics of Galicia, or Bed Russia, who number two 
millions of Ruthenians, as they are called, use the Slavonic 
liturgy, and their secular clergy may marry before receiving 
Holy Orders. 



308 The Russian and Greek Churches. 

Euthymus Zygabenus, who, by order of Alexis 
Comnenus, collected the sayings of the Fathers 
against each and every heresy, makes no mention of 
the Latins as heretics. Even in the twelfth century 
there were many Greeks in communion with Koine, 
as we learn from the many narratives of the Cru- 
sades, from the < 'Alexias" of Anna Comnena, from 
the "Life of Manuel" by Nicetas Choniates, and 
from the letters (B. IV., Nos. 39, 40) of the Vener- 
able Peter of Cluny to the Emperor John Comnenus 
and to the Patriarch of Constantinople. 

The following remarks of Father Gagarin, than 
whom the reader will find no better authority on 
matters concerning the Russian Church, are worthy 
of attention: "It was only in a very indirect 
manner that the Russian Church was drawn into 
schism. The metropolitans of Kiev depended, in the 
hierarchical order, upon Constantinople. When the 
rupture between Rome and Byzantium took place, 
Kiev found itself separated from the centre of 
unity; but for a long time the Russians did not 
share the passions of the Greeks, and it may be 
said that, for a long period, merely a material schism 
subsisted between Rome and the Russian Church. 
But the clergy of Constantinople endeavored to 
imbue the Russians with their own prejudices and 
with their hatred of the Latins. They succeeded, 
and when the princes of Moscow manifested a de- 
sign of attacking the independence of the Russian 
Church, this body could rely on itself alone, 



The Russian and Greek Churches, 309 

4 'As yet no one has written the sad and touching 
history of the struggle which this Church, isolated 
from the West, and betrayed by the East, sustained 
against the growing ambition of the grand dukes 
and czars of Moscow. And, nevertheless, that 
history has some beautiful pages. If the Eussian 
Church succumbed, it was not without combat or 
without glory. Ivan III., if not from conviction, 
at least ostensibly, belonged to a sect which de- 
signed to substitute Judaism for Christianity. The 
metropolitan of Moscow had been seduced, but the 
Russian Church preserved sufficient strength and 
independence to condemn the impure doctrines. 
When Ivan IV., who much resembled Henry VIII. 
of England, shed the blood of his subjects in 
torrents, and trampled on the authority of the 
Church to gratify his passions, Philip, metropolitan 
of Moscow, spoke to him with apostolic liberty, 
and sealed his remonstrances with his blood. But 
the Church continued to lose ground, and when 
Boris Godounov transformed the metropolitan of 
Moscow into a patriarch (1588), that elevation 
was, in his mind, for the purpose of furnishing the 
Czar with a willing tool." * 

Although the ' 'orthodox" Russians and schismatic 
Greeks, like the Nestorians and Jacobites, are wit- 
nesses to the antiquity of many dogmas which 
Protestants regard as modern human innovations, 



■La Russie, Sera-t-elle Catholique? " Paris, 1856. 



310 The Russian and Greeh Churches. 

Protestant polemics ever show much sympathy for 
the aversion cherished by these schismatics toward 
the Holy See. The children of the Reformation 
have often endeavored to enter into communion 
with these separatists, but their efforts have re- 
sulted, each time, only in a formal condemnation of 
Protestant tenets by the progeny of Photius and 
Cerularius. Two of these attempts at union be- 
tween the Eastern and Western opponents of Rome 
merit attention. 

In 1574 Stephen Gerlach, a Lutheran, and preacher 
to the imperial embassy at Constantinople, was 
urged by many of his co-religionists to obtain from 
Jeremiah II., Patriarch of Constantinople, an en- 
dorsement of the "Confession of Augsburg" as 
consonant with the faith of the schismatics. But 
Jeremiah combatted the "Confession" as heretical, 
with tongue and pen. In 1672 Dositheus, schismatic 
Patriarch of Jerusalem, convoked a synod to con- 
sider the doctrines of Calvin, and the synodals said 
of the Lutheran overtures to Jeremiah: "Martin 
Crugius, and others well versed in the new doctrines 
of Luther, sent the articles of their 'Confession' 
to him who then sat on the throne of the Catholic 
Constantinopolitan Church, that they might learn 
whether they agreed in doctrine with the Oriental 
churches. But that great Patriarch wrote to them 
— yea, against them — three learned discourses, or 
replies, wherein he theologically and Catholicly re- 
futed their entire heresy, and taught them the 



The Russian and Greek Churches. 311 

orthodox doctrines which the Oriental Church re- 
ceived from the beginning. However, they paid 
no attention; for they had bidden farewell to all 
piety. The patriarch's book was issued, in Greek 
and Latin, at Wittemberg in Germany, in the year 
of salvation 1584; but before the time of Jeremiah, 
the entire doctrine of the Oriental Church had been 
more fully set forth by the priest John Nathaniel, 
procurator of Constantinople, in his 'Treatise on 
the Sacred Liturgy;' and after the said Jeremiah, 
this was also done by Gabriel Severus Moreanus, 
Archbishop of our brethren of Crete, in his book on 
'The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church.' "* 
Another and more celebrated attempt to unite the 
Western innovators and the Eastern schismatics 
was made in the seventeenth century. Cyril Lucar, 
a Candiot, was sent to the University of Padua 
when a youth, where he studied under the famous 
Margunius, Bishop of Cythera. After his gradu- 
ation he travelled in Germany, and became infected 
with the new doctrines. Nevertheless, on his re- 
turn among the Greeks he received the priesthood, 
and in time became Patriarch of Alexandria. In 
1621, having bribed the Grand Vizier, with money 
furnished by the Calvinists of Holland, he was 
appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. He began 
immediately to teach Calvinism; the clergy re- 
volted; Cyril was exiled to Ehodes, and Anthimius 



* We have followed the Latin version of this Synod of 
Jerusalem (or of Bethlehem), made by an anonymous Bene- 
dictine of St. Maur, and first published at Paris, in 1676. 



312 The Russian and Greek Churches. 

of Adrianople was placed on the patriarchal throne. 
However, the intrigues of the English ambassador 
caused the Porte to recall Cyril, and he soon pub- 
lished a "Confession of Faith" of the mostCalvin- 
istic type. In 1636 the indignation of the Greeks 
compelled the Porte to again banish the innovator, 
but after three months he was once more recalled 
— only to be bow-stringed, by order of the Porte, 
in 1638.* 

Lucar's "Confession of Faith'' appeared in Hol- 
land in 1645, and was gladly welcomed by Protes- 
tants as a harbinger of their recognition by the 
historically venerable churches of the East; but 
the consequent publication of the justly celebrated 
"Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholic Church 
concerning the Eucharist" demonstrated the fal- 
laciousness of their hopes. f They soon found that 
the Greeks admitted their agreement with Eome 
concerning most of the Catholic dogmas. Indeed, 



* Spondanus: y. 1627, no. 9; y. 1638, no. 14; y. 1639, no. 
12. — Claude: "K^ponse a La Perp^tuite" de la Foi," La Havre, 
1670.— Hottinger : "Analecta^Hist. Theol."— Du Pin: "Bibli- 
otheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques." — Thos. Smith: "Life 
of Cyril Lucar." 

t In the five quarto volumes of which this work consists, 
are collected testimonies of all the Greek ecclesiastical authors 
who wrote after the schism of Photius; the professions of 
faith of many patriarchs and bishops ; declarations of many 
synods; the liturgies, etc., of the East. It is proved that in 
all ages, just as to-day, the Orientals admitted seven Sacra- 
ments, and held that these produce (?) grace; that, as now, 
they believed in Transubstantiation; that, as now, they 
prayed to the saints, prayed for the dead. It is also shown 



The Russian and Greek Churches. 313 

as soon as Lucar's "Confession" appeared in Con- 
stantinople, the author was synodically deposed, 
and Cyril of Berea was made patriarch. This pre- 
late convoked a synod in 1638, and a condemnation 
of Lucar's "Confession" was signed by the three 
schismatic patriarchs (of Constantinople, Alexan- 
dria, and Jerusalem), and by twenty -three bishops. 
Soon after, bribery and intrigue procured the pa- 
triarchal chair for Parthenius of Adrianople, who 
in 1642 held another synod, which again reprobated 
Lucar's teachings. In 1672 Dositheus of Jerusa- 
lem celebrated the synod already mentioned, which 
confirmed the decisions of the other assemblies. 

In the "Acts" of this assembly we read that 
the Greek schismatics accused the Calvinists (whom 
they styled "liars, innovators, heretics, mendacious 
architects, apostates, who, like all heretics, are arti- 
ficial explainers of Scripture and of the Fathers,") 
of calumniating the Orientals by the assertion that 
the said Orientals held Calvinistic doctrine. And 
this assertion was made, say the bishops, in spite 



that Lucar manifested, not the sentiments of his Church, but 
his own opinions — a fact proved by himself when he proposed 
his doctrine as one he would like to introduce among the 
Greeks. In the last two volumes of the "Perpetuity," the 
doctrine of the Catholic and schismatic Greek Churches is 
compared with that of the Nestorians, who separated from 
Rome in the fifth century, and with that of the Eutychians, 
or Jacobites, who became schismatics in the sixth. Then fol- 
lows an exposition of the belief and of the discipline of the 
Ethiopians, Egyptian Copts, Maronites, and of the Nestorians 
scattered throughout Persia and India. 



314 The Russian and Greek Churches, 

of so many declarations of Greek patriarchs; in 
spite of the publication of the "orthodox" belief; 
in spite of the lucid treatises of many Greek doctors. 
Then follow eighteen chapters, in which the synodals 
declare that man's free-will was not destroyed by 
the fall of Adam ; that faith alone will not justify ; 
that there are seven sacraments; that Baptism 
cleanses from original sin; that in the Eucharist 
the substance of the bread and wine is really 
changed into the substance of the Body and Blood 
of Christ; that the saints are to be invoked as 
friends of God ; that their images are to be ven- 
erated ; that we must receive all traditions given us 
by the Church, which, being taught by the Holy 
Ghost, can not err. 

Disappointed in their hopes of union with some 
ecclesiastical body of comparative antiquity, the 
Calvinists accounted for the adverse action of the 
schismatic synods by the supposition of Latin 
bribery. Thus, in 1722, appeared the book of 
Cowell, an Englishman, who tried to prove that 
fraud was behind the apparent agreement of the 
Roman and schismatic doctrines. Mosheim affects 
to discover, in the history of the Lucar affair, that 
Catholic polemics do not scruple at dishonesty 
when disputing with heretics. Now, it is false 
that the Greek bishops who condemned the Western 
"reformers" were partial to the Latins. Cyril of 
Berea, like many other schismatic prelates and 



The Russian and Greek Churches, 315 

priests of his time, may have died, as Mosheim 
asserts, in the Roman communion, but the dominant 
spirits of the synods in question would have rivalled 
a Scotch covenanter in hatred of Rome. Nec- 
tarius, an ex-patriarch of Jerusalem, composed an 
energetic diatribe * 'Against the Primacy of the 
Pope." Dositheus, the president of the Synod of 
Jerusalem, published, in 1683, many works of 
Simeon of Thessalonica, in which this writer se- 
verely upbraids the Latins. Again, if these Greek 
adversaries of the 4 'Reformation" were actuated by 
a desire of pleasing Rome, why did they, in these 
very synods, so strenuously assert their peculiar 
dogma concerning the Procession of the Holy 
Ghost? Finally, how is it that the Greeks, so 
bitter against the Holy See, so tenacious of their 
own distinctive doctrines, did not depose Dositheus, 
Nectarius, Parthenius, etc. ? 

From the day of her separation from Rome, the 
Greek Church, once so active, has been in a state 
of lethargy, displaying none of that fecundity 
which Christ promised to His own spouse. "The 
prodigious ignorance and stupid superstition," says 
Feller, "in which the priests and people of this 
isolated Church are involved, necessarily entail the 
great abuses and enormous disorders with which 
they are reproached. For centuries the Greeks 
can show no celebrated doctor, no council worthy 
of attention. Their latest sages — Bessarion, Al- 



816 The Russian and Greek Churches. 

latius, Arcudius, etc., — all belonged to the Church 
of Kome."* 

And now a few words as to the probability of a 
submission of the Kussian "orthodox" Church to 
the Roman jurisdiction. The Czar may devoutly 
wish for union with Eome. If he is a statesman, 
he must realize that the activity and zeal of a 
Papal clergy would be a great check to the growth 
of Nihilism. The more learned and more pious 
of the "orthodox" clergy — too few, alas! in 
number — may yearn for unity. But there is one 
obstacle, which apparently, neither the once power- 

* Again we call the reader's attention to some reflections 
of Gagarin: "Bizantism pretended to have for its object 
the exaltation and triumph of the Greek Church, Empire, and 
nationality. It sacrificed the unity and independence of the 
Church to that object, and what has been the result of the 
conflict which it provoked? The ruin of the Greek Church, 
and consequently of the Greek Empire and nationality. But 
God did not wish that this ancient and glorious Church should 
perish. He raised up a new people, who seem to have the 
mission of re-establishing her in her pristine splendor. That 
people is the Slavic, and three-fourths of them belong to the 
Oriental rite, with this difference, that their liturgical lan- 
guage is the (Old) Slavonic. One can not avoid being struck 
by the contrast between the Slavonic and Greek branches of the 
Oriental rite. The former possesses numbers, force, vigor, 
while the latter exhibits only feebleness and decrepitude. 
Laying aside every other argument, the figures will make this 
difference palpable. It is estimated that all the Oriental 
Christians— Slavs, Greeks, Moldo-Wallachians, or Eoumani- 
ans, Georgians, etc., — number about seventy million souls, of 
whom nearly sixty millions are Slavs. If from the ten or twelve 
remaining millions we deduct those who are not Greeks, we 
see to how small a number the Greeks are reduced. Now, the 
Slavs of the Oriental rite are nearly all subjects of the Hus- 
sion Empire." 



The Russian and Greek Churches. 317 

ful inclinations of a Czar nor the fast-decreasing 
influence of a corrupt clergy can overcome. When 
England shall have learned the wisdom of doing 
justice to Ireland, there may be hope that Eussia 
will commence to doubt the wisdom of her policy 
toward her Ireland — unfortunate, noble, and ex- 
hausted Poland. But as yet, to the average Eus- 
sian mind, Poland is a subject only for the iron 
heel; and Catholicism, to this mind, means Latin- 
ism, — i. e., Polanism. The Eussian " patriot," 
therefore, regards any progress of Catholicism in 
"Holy Eussia" as a progress of Polish nationality. 
Again, the Eussian clergy have always syste- 
matically inculcated the idea that a reunion with 
Eome means the abolition of several institutions 
dear to the Eussian heart — viz., Communion under 
both species, the use of fermented bread in the 
Sacrifice of the Mass, the Old Slavonic liturgy, and 
the marriage of the secular clergy. And here we 
must note that nothing can be more false than the 
idea entertained by most of the Eastern schismatics 
that whenever there has been a question of reunion 
with Eome, the Holy See has designed to force 
them to adopt the Latin rite and discipline. While 
it is true that in the Ottoman Empire all of the 
United or Catholic Greeks, excepting the Syrian 
Melchites ; and that in Poland, very many members 
of the Greek rite have passed over to the Latin 
rite; the Holy See can not be justly blamed for 
these facts, since they are to be ascribed to causes 



318 The Russian and Greek Churches. 

completely foreign to the actions of the Catholic 
missionaries.* In refutation of this idea of the 
Papal intentions, Benedict XIV., in his Bull Alletce 
sunt, quotes the words of Pope Innocent IV., who 
cited two Constitutions of Pope Leo X. and Clem- 
ent VII., in which these Pontiffs vehemently re- 
proved those Latins who blamed the Greeks for 
their observance of certain customs approved by 
the Council of Florence. The same Benedict XIV., 
speaking of those who were laboring for reunion, 
resumes their obligations as follows: (1.) They 
should disabuse the schismatics of those errors 
which their ancestors introduced in order that they 



* "In Turkey," says Gagarin, "until the hatti-houmayoum 
of Feb. 18, 1856, all the Christians of the Greek rite were 
placed under the (civil) authority of the Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople; and when one of them renounced that prelate's 
communion to enter that of the Pope, it is evident that he was 
exposed to vexation by the former personage, who, though 
no longer his spiritual, was still his temporal ruler. He had 
only one way of escaping persecution, and that was a with- 
drawal from the patriarch's civil jurisdiction when he left the 
schismatic communion. To effect this withdrawal, he had to 
join the Latin rite. These few words ought to explain how, 
in Greece and the Archipelago, all the Catholic Greeks have 
been led to abandon the Greek rite. The concessions made 
by the Sultan Abdul-Mejid, on Feb. 18, 1S56, deprived the pa- 
triarch of his civil authority over his co-nationals; but it has 
not yet been shown that the Greeks who were desirous of join- 
ing the Roman communion, and who still preferred to cling 
to their old rite, could do so with impunity. Let us judge, 
then, whether they could have done so a century or two ago. 
In Poland the circumstances were different, but the united 
Russians passed to the Latin rite because of similar influ- 
ences. In the Republic of Poland there were two rites, two 



The Russian and Greek Churches. 319 

might have a pretext for withdrawing from the 
obedience of the Sovereign Pontiff. As an easier 
method of converting said schismatics, the great- 
est stress should be laid upon the writings of the 
early Fathers of the Greek Church, who are in 
perfect accord with the Latin Fathers. (2.) To 
bring the Eastern schismatics into the fold of the 
true Church, it is not necessary to attack their 
rites. On the contrary, as the Apostolic See has 
always insisted, they must not be urged to follow 
the Latin rite. And in our own day Pope Pius IX., 
in an Encyclical address to the Orientals, under 
date of January 6, 1848, uttered the same senti- 
ments. Nevertheless, the idea is firmly fixed in 
most Russian minds that union with Rome means 
the loss of their loved rite. This, added to their 
present sentiments as to the burning question of 
Poland, would seem to indicate that there is little 
probability of a speedy submission of the Russian 
Church to the Holy See. 



languages, and two nationalities. The superiority was with 
the Poles; and when the convert adopted the Latin rite, he 
assumed Polish nationality, and entered the ranks of the dom- 
inant people. Does not this state of things explain the facts 
opposed to us?" 



COLUMBUS AND HIS ALLEGED CRIMES. 

Cheistopher Columbus, insists Count Roselly 
de Lorgues, one of the only two authors of satis- 
factory biographies of the hero-navigator, does not 
belong exclusively to Italy, where he was born; nor 
to Spain, which he served ; but rather to Catholicity, 
from which he received inspiration, and which, 
reciprocating, surrounds him with incomparable 
splendor. This is well said; but we would take 
issue with the illustrious author when he adds that 
' 'to France, after Eome, it belongs, as the eldest 
daughter of the Church, to celebrate religiously" 
the fourth centenary of the discovery of America.* 
In the generous rivalry as to who will be foremost 
in proclaiming the glories of Columbus, no people 
have a better right to be in the van than the Cath- 
olics of the United States. It needs not that we 
join in that absurd spread-eagleism which would 
insinuate that the Church never found a proper field 
for her labors until this Eepublic came into exist- 
ence ; there is sufficient reason for congratulation in 
the past of the American Church, sufficient grounds 
for hope as to its future, to induce the American 
Catholic to enter, with more heart and soul than 



* In a late letter to the Committee of the International Fed- 
eration of the Sacred Heart for the Keligious Celebration of 
the Fourth Centenary of the Discovery of America. 

320 



Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 321 

any other, into the joys of the coming celebration. 
And when the spirit of Columbus shall look down 
upon that recognition of his transcendent merits, 
it will approve of the American Catholic's part with 
more zest than it will feel for any other's share; 
for the great event of the hero's life was not so 
much a voyage of discovery as a missionary enter- 
prise. "The man who bore Christ in his heart," says 
Eoselly de Lorgues, "as he did in his name, raised 
His image also on his ship ; he had the representa- 
tion of the Crucified on the royal standard. In the 
name of Jesus Christ he issued his official order for 
departure ; with that name he began the diary of 
his voyage ; with that name he braved the horrors 
of the 'tenebrous' sea, and subjugated his mutinous 
crew; in that name he took possession of the first 
island to which the Divine Goodness led him. 
There he planted the Cross, and dedicated the land 
to the Saviour, imposing upon it the blessed name 
of San Salvador." * 

It is a remarkable fact that while most of the 
contemporaries of Columbus seem to have been in- 
different as to his glory, the Holy See was ever 
prodigal with its sympathy for his work. Three 
successive Popes manifested their affection for him ; 
and at the time when he suffered so much from de- 
traction, he was honored by the friendship of many 
members of the Sacred College. Pope Leo X. 
used to listen, during the winter evenings, to read- 



* Idem. 



322 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 

ings of his adventures as narrated by Peter Martyr 
of Anghiera. It was under the auspices of Pope 
Innocent XI. that the learned Oratorian, Bozius, 
published his ' 'Signs of the Church of God," in 
which he applied many of the olden prophecies to 
Columbus. Cardinal Bernardine Carvajal held a 
correspondence with Peter Martyr of Anghiera in 
reference to the navigator; and Cardinal Louis of 
Aragon sent one of his secretaries to that litterateur 
to record what he had learned from the lips of the 
navigator himself. Cardinal Bembo devoted a chap- 
ter of his "History of Venice" to the voyages of our 
hero. It was by invitation of several cardinals that 
Julius Caesar Stella undertook his Latin epic on 
the New World, which Cardinal Alexander Farnese 
caused to be read to his colleagues assembled for 
recreation in his villa. Cardinal Sforza-Pallavicino 
gave much space of his "Fasti Sacri" to Columbus. 
Cardinal Valerio, in his work on the "Consolations 
of the Church," glorifies the navigator, and applies 
some of the prophecies of Isaias to his mission. The 
poet Gambara sang of the wonderful voyages on 
the invitation of the famous statesman, Cardinal 
Granvelle. It was Cardinal Mendoza, Archbishop 
of Toledo, known as the "third King of Spain," 
who first presented Columbus to Ferdinand and 
Isabella. Among the first to applaud the design of 
the Italian sailor was Mgr. Geraldini, the papal 
nuncio at the Spanish court. The nuncio took up 
the cause of Columbus against certain theologians, 
who imagined that he implied the existence of other 



Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 323 

worlds not mentioned in Genesis ; and he convinced 
Cardinal Mendoza that the Columbian theory did 
not contradict St. Augustine or Nicholas of Lyra, 
who, for that matter, he observed, were not cos- 
mographers or navigators.* And while the Papacy 
was thus preventing even Italy, his native land, 
from forgetting the honor due to her illustrious 
son, perhaps the only circumstance that kept his 
memory alive in the rest of the world was that stu- 
pid story of the egg with the broken end.f "The 
story pleased children, and the first German nar- 
rative on the subject of Columbus was designed 
for their amusement." J 

Until very late years, strange to say, few writers 
treated at all extensively of Columbus; indeed, only 



* Cantu: "Illustri Italiani," art. "Colombo." 
f Laraartine, in his imaginative biography of Columbus, 
locates the scene of this exhibition in the banquet-hall of King 
Ferdinand. Others describe it as occurring at the feast given 
in honor of the Grand Admiral by Cardinal Mendoza. None 
of the Spanish historians speak of it; the first to do so was the 
Milanese Benzoni; and he, thinks De Lorgues, must have con- 
fused some of his childish recollections. The story of the egg 
is, in all likelihood, of Italian origin. "It is attributed with 
much probability to Brunnelleschi, the architect of the cupola 
of Sta. Maria del Fiore. In this supposition, the idea, inept 
as it is, is not impossible. At a table where are assembled a 
lot of Florentine artists, free-and-easy banterers and scoffers, 
such frivolity is comprehensible; but nowhere else." Nearly 
all smart sayings, observed Voltaire, recalling the application 
of this tale to B*runnelleschi, are repetitions. ("Essai sur les 
Moeurs," ch. 145.) 

X De Lorgues, vol. i, b. 2. 



324 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 

two such, Humboldt and Irving, were well known to 
English readers. Both of these being Protestants, 
it is not surprising that the religious aspect of the 
life of the hero was presented in a distorted fashion, 
or, at best, in a very inadequate manner. Nor did 
the scientific side of the navigator's career receive 
a strictly just treatment from the school represented 
by these two authors. For instance, Robertson 
consoles his insular jealousy with the assurance that 
if the sagacity of Columbus had not made America 
known to us, some happy accident would have done 
so at some other time. Otto contended that the 
Genoese discovered nothing, since America had 
been visited by Europeans long before his day. It 
was reserved to our times to produce two really 
satisfactory narratives of this wonderful and edify- 
ing life : one by the Frenchman, Roselly de Lorgues ; 
the other by the Italian, Tarducci. These authors 
alone seem to have been willing, and, being willing, 
to have been able, to properly delineate the not 
easily appreciated career of him who, when pre- 
senting his gift of a new world to their Spanish 
Majesties, conjured them "to allow no foreigner to 
establish himself therein for commercial purposes, 
unless he were a Catholic ; to permit entrance even 
to no Spaniard, unless he were a true Christian; 
for the design and execution of this enterprise have 
had no other object than the growth and glory 
of the Christian religion."* The Protestant and 



* "Y digo que Vuestras Altezas no deben consentir que 
aqui trate ni hagapie" ninguno extrangero, salvo catolicos cris- 



Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 325 

philosophistic school could not be expected to read- 
ily abandon the field which it had been used to re- 
gard as its own. It is not unnatural that a Harvard 
professor should have volunteered to restore the 
lagunes which De Lorgues and Tarducci had filled 
up, and to re-envelop the life of Columbus in the 
haze which they had dissipated. But the work of 
Justin Winsor is of too flimsy a nature to be wel- 
comed by the scientific; indeed, one can discover no 
reason for its appearance, save that implied by the 
zeal with which the writer has endeavored to show 
that our hero was a very ordinary man, and the 
almost ghoulish appetite which he displays for the 
imperfections which his school has ever pretended 
to discern in an almost perfect character. 

The faults of Irving in his treatment of Colum- 
bus are mostly of a negative kind. The deliberate 
calumniator is absent in his lucubrations; most of 
his sins are those of omission ; and probably they 
would not have to be deplored, had his religious 
and political environment permitted him to see the 
appropriateness, if not the necessity, of avoiding 
them. Thus, it was a grave historical fault for him 
to commit when, treating of the landing at San Sal- 
vador, he said nothing of the erection by Columbus 
of an immense cross, in sign of his having taken 
possession of that territory in the name of our Lord 



tianos, pues este fue el fin y el comienzo del proposito que 
fuese par acrecentamiento y gloria de la religion cristiana." 



326 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 

Jesus Christ.* However, most of his school can 
not be so leniently treated by the Catholic critic. 
Humboldt charges Columbus with inflexible severity 
and cruelty; with the violation of the personal 
liberty of the Indians, and with administrative in- 
capacity. We shall briefly examine these charges, 
and thus see whether there is any justification for 
the sole raison d'etre of Winsor's diatribe. 

The charge of inflexible severity is based princi- 
pally upon the Admiral's treatment of Bernal Diaz, 
who had formed a conspiracy, a plan of which was 
found upon his person, and which he did not dis- 
avow. But Irving finds that the course of Columbus 
was quite moderate, inasmuch as he abstained from 
exercising his undoubted vice-regal prerogative of 
inflicting condign punishment upon a confessed 
traitor; simply confining him to one of the ships 
until he could be forwarded to Spain for trial. His 
accomplices of inferior rank, adds Irving, were 
punished according to their degree of guilt, but not 
with the rigor it deserved. f From this moment, 
says Charlevoix, J this act of necessary justice, in 
which all formalities were exactly observed, began 
to entail consequences fatal to Columbus and his 
whole family. His enemies charged him with 



* "Per lasciare un segno d "haver preso la possessione in 
nome del Signore Jesu Cristo." Bamusio : u Delle Naviga- 
zioni e Viaggi," vol. iii, fol. 2. 

t B. vi, ch. 8. 

% "Histoire do St.-Domingue," b. 2. 



Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 327 

capriciously outraging Castilian gentlemen; but, 
remarks Irving, they took good care to be silent 
concerning the crimes and debaucheries of these 
gentlemen, and the seditious cabals which the Ad- 
miral had so often forgiven.* Modern philanthro- 
pists, Humboldt at their head, have affected horror 
at the punishment which Columbus, in his instruc- 
tions, recommended as befitting robbers. But pun- 
ishments vary with times and places. Oviedo, an 
eye-witness, tells us that among the Indians first 
found by Columbus, "the sin most abominated was 
theft, "f The native code "prescribed impalement 
as its penalty." Charlevoix corroborates this ac- 
count. When the Admiral found himself obliged, 
in time, to punish theft among the Indians, he sub- 
stituted for their own penalty one which spared life, 
while marking the culprits as warnings to others. 
He cut off the end of the ear or of the nose ; as was 
prescribed in those days by the Code of Valencia, J 
and by that of the Hermandad.§j 

The charge of cruelty to the Indians is persist- 
ently brought against Columbus by English and 
American writers, and by the entire Protestant 
school. The picture of only a pitiful remnant of 
aborigines surviving contact with the Anglo-Saxon 



* B. viii, ch. S. 

f "Hist. Nat. de las Indias," b. v, ch. 3. 
% Tarazona: "Instituciones del Fuero, y Privilegios del 
Reino de Valencia, " vol. viii. 

§ Saint-Hilaire : "Histoire d'Espagne," b. xviii. 



828 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 

in North America, while seven-eighths of the pop- 
ulation of Spanish and Portuguese America are of 
pure or mixed Indian blood, is too eloquent a com- 
mentary on the respective civilizing capabilities of 
Protestant and Catholic nations, and on the philan- 
thropic tendencies of the two pioneer white races 
which disputed the possession of the New World, to 
allow of any equanimity of temper, or any judicial 
impartiality, on the part of these gentlemen when 
treating of this and kindred subjects. In the specifi- 
cation to the effect that Columbus reduced the Indi- 
ans to slavery, it should be remembered that he 
never counselled the enslaving of the pacific and 
mild-mannered savages : it was the ferocious, man- 
eating, and otherwise indomitable race of the Caribs, 
whom no kindness or other rule could affect, that 
he proposed to enslave, for the well-being of the 
settlers and their own. To the peaceable Indians 
he was a defender : he caused their persons, families, 
and property to be respected. It was because of this 
distinction that the depraved and rapacious among 
the adventurers of Hispaniola, while the hero's 
foes at Seville were accusing him of maltreating the 
natives, wrote to the sovereigns that the Admiral 
would not countenance the subjection of the Indians 
to Christians. Even Humboldt recognizes this con- 
tradiction. Certainly the Spanish court never re- 
proached the Admiral for severity in administra- 
tion; nay, when his successor received his final 
instructions, in the presence of the sovereigns, 



Columbus and His Alleged Grimes, 329 

the Counsellor of State, Fonseca, advised him to 
avoid the troubles of Columbus by being, from the 
beginning of his administration, implacable in face 
of any attempt at revolt.* 

As to the charge of administrative incapacity, 
why, asks Eoselly de Lorgues, should we discuss 
the governmental acts of Columbus, when facts are 
more eloquent than any interpretation? "When, 
after his discovery of the New Continent, he re- 
turned sick to Hispaniola, to find insurrection rife 
among the natives, the Spaniards in rebellion, his 
own orders contemned, and his subordinates traitors, 
his position seemed hopeless ; for he was without 
troops, money, or moral aid. Nevertheless, by 
adroit concessions and able temporizations, he 
subdued violence, disarmed crime, re-established- 
authority, organized production, and initiated the 
prosperity of Hispaniola. If that is not adminis- 
trative ability, explain the prodigy. How can we 
doubt the administrative talents of Columbus, when 
we behold this seaman become suddenly, according 
to necessity, agriculturist, architect, military en- 
gineer, constructer of roads and bridges, economist, 
and a specially able magistrate ?' ' Envy invented this 
fancied incapacity of the Admiral, in order to mask 
its own hideously ungrateful designs. It succeeded 
only too well ; but it is certain that even at the time 
when the person of Columbus was the object of per- 
secution, his colonial regulations, abrogated under 



* Herrera : "Hist. Gen. des Conquetes et Voyages des Cas- 
tillans dans les Indes Occidentals, " b. iv, ch. 13. 



330 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 

the influence of his successors, were soon restored 
by order of the monarchs. 

We have said that the philosophistic, Protestant, 
and freethinking schools affect to regard Columbus 
as a very ordinary man. It is not surprising, there- 
fore, that they should gleefully seize upon any 
chance of showing that our hero sometimes yielded 
to the grosser frailties of human nature. One in- 
stance they have thought to advance, and only one. 
They tell us that when he lay upon his death -bed, 
on the very eve of his dissolution, the Admiral was 
seized with remorse for his conduct toward Dona 
Beatrice Enriquez, the mother of his natural son, 
Don Ferdinand. In his last will and testament, 
therefore, they say, he recommended Beatrice to 
the care of his son Diego, adding concerning the 
impelling reason for such recommendation, that it 
was not proper that he should specify it.* From 
this ambiguous remark alone, Napione, Spotorno, 
Navarrete, Humboldt, Irving, and, of course, all 
the minor fry, of whom Prof. Winsor is the latest 
spokesman, conclude that Columbus had not married 
the Lady Enriquez. But if the dying Admiral was 
so anxious to preserve the fair fame of Beatrice 
Enriquez as to deem it improper to assign the reason 
for his recommendation, how came he, in the same 



* "La razon de ello no es lecito de escriberla aqui." See 
the last article in the "Holographic Testament, Written and 
Recopied by Columbus, on Aug. 25, 1505," in the "Coleccion 
Diplomatica," docum. 158. 



Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 331 

document, to allude to her as the mother of Don 
Ferdinand? In the supposition that a marriage 
had taken place, such mention would have been 
natural, and would have accorded well with the 
enigmatic words, though we may not grasp their 
real significance. In the supposition of a culpable 
relation, Columbus would have defeated his own 
purpose. Nor can the defamers of the Admiral 
take any comfort from the fact that he styles 
Beatrice by the (to us) rather discourteous term of 
woman, muger. To this day what Frenchman 
speaks of his wife in any other way than as sa 
femmef To what British or Irish peasant are hus- 
band and wife other than each other's "man" and 
"woman?" And that in the clays of Columbus 
muger was used by the Spaniards in the sense of 
"wife," we know from incontestably authentic 
documents. Thus, Queen Jane, widow of Henry 
IV., of Spain, in her holographic will of April, 
1475, calls herself, Muger del Rey Don Enrique, 
que Dios liaya." Ferdinand styled the great Isa- 
bella, "La Serenissima Heina, Dona Isabel mi 
muger;" and he spoke of his second wife, Germaine 
de Foix, as "Sei-enissima JReina, nuestra muy cara 
y muy amada muger."* 

Again, the facts in this case have been falsified. 
The regret of Columbus on his death-bed for any 
injustice to the Lady Enriquez is purely imaginary ; 
nor did he make any will on the eve of his death. 



Don Mig. Salva. 



332 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 

The codicil which is said to have been drawn up on 
May 19, 1506, was already more than four years 
old.* Beatrice Enriquez had married Columbus at 
Cordova, while she was in the flower of her youth 
and beauty, and her lover was struggling to obtain 
a recognition from the Spanish court, a poor, white- 
headed, and unknown foreigner. When he was 
about to start on his last and most dangerous 
voyage, the Admiral remembered that in his "act 
of majoratus," whereby he had long ago arranged 
the temporal future of his heirs, he had made for 
Beatrice no provision of dowry. This act, known 
to the sovereigns and the Holy See, could not readily 
be nullified or changed ; hence he satisfied his con- 
science by recommending his wife to the care of 
his son, and he did not deem it obligatory to inform 
the world of his reasons. "They who discern in 
these words," says Eoselly de Lorgues, "an avowal 
wrenched from the remorse of Columbus at the 
terrible moment of his farewell to life, forget 
the date of this will. They have confused the 
drawing up of this holographic document with its 
presentation, which was effected four years later, 
on the eve of the Admiral's death. From certain 
words, the import of which their misconception of 
this grand character prevented their grasping, they 
have evolved a theory of an illicit relationship, and 
of a sterile remorse at the supreme moment. The 
difference of the dates did not strike them. . . . 



t "Col. Dipl.," no 158. 



Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 333 

The marriage of Columbus with the Lady Beatrice 
Enriquez, demonstrated by so many logical induc- 
tions, by various documents and other proofs, and 
recognized by his descendants, was acknowledged 
by him under his own hand, five years, four months, 
and eighteen days, before the act of deposit effected 
on the eve of his death, in an autographic document 
which has happily come down to us."* 

The class of writers to which Prof. Winsor be- 
longs can find no other passages in the career of 
Columbus which ask for defensive explanation. It 
is not strange that they should make the most of 
this one; for Columbus was a fervent, practical, 
and uncompromising Catholic. No one can uphold 
the Catholic standard as he did without becoming 
a target for the arrows of that school which, until 
late years, almost monopolized the historical field 
in English-speaking lands, and in all where the 
spirit of the world had, through noise and imper- 
turbable effrontery, become the moulder of modern 
historical opinion. Columbus could not be spared 
by the calumniators who respected not even the 
canonized saints of God. Did they not charge St. 
Cyril of Alexandria with deliberate murder? Had 
they not presented St. Clothilde as fuming with 
blind and implacable vindictiveness ? Was not the 
Blessed Eobert d'Arbrissel, according to their 
account, a culpable victim of crazy hallucinations 
in matters of morality? And had they not dragged 



* In Introduction, and in vol. ii, p. 382, 3d edit., 1869. 



334 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 

the sweet Maid of Orleans from her pedestal of 
glory, and besmirched her virgin-crown with the 
mud of fallen womanhood? No genius, they said, 
could be a practical Catholic. The gentle Fenelon, 
the sublime Mozart, Fontenelle, Cervantes, Mon- 
tesquieu, and Montaigne, though passing as Cath- 
olics, were in reality freethinkers. As to the most 
universal of all geniuses, Dante, was he not a 
heretic and a revolutionist? And the grand Savon- 
arola ! Even the merely artistic, if they were truly 
artistic, have to shake off the trammels of Catholic 
practice. Did not Raphael die of amorous excesses ? 
Such were some of the calumnies with which the 
modern dominant historical school was wont to 
illustrate its theory that true greatness and Cath- 
olicity were incompatible. But they are losing 
much of their force in our day, unless with the 
wilfully obtuse ; and similar charges will not avail 
much to dim the glory of Columbus the Catholic. 



APPENDIX. 

When our essay on Bruno and Campanella was 
written (1889), the only argument which could be 
adduced for a belief in the apostate's execution, 
was found in the letter of Schopp to Rittershausen ; 
and so many and so convincing were the reasons 
alleged for the non-authenticity of this document, 
that we felt compelled to believe that the unfor- 
tunate friar was burnt merely in e^gy. Two years 
afterward, however, a document was unearthed, 
which renders it indubitable that Bruno perished at 
the stake. Among the many institutions of mercy 
which have been the glory of the Eternal City for 
centuries, one of the most famous is that of the 
Confraternity of San Giovanni Decollato, the mem- 
bers of which devote themselves to the preparation 
of the capitally condemned for a happy death. For 
centuries this society kept an exact record of all its 
unfortunate clients. Now, in the "Journal" of the 
Provisor of the Community, which contains an ac- 
count of the executions attended by the brethren 
from May 14, 1598, to September 1, 1602, the inves- 
tigators appointed by the Crispi administration 
found, after the fifteenth line of page 87, the fol- 
lowing narrative : "On Thursday, February 16, 1600, 
at two hours of the night, it was intimated to our 

335 



336 Appendix. 

Company that in the morning justice was to be 
visited upon an impenitent friar. Therefore, at six 
hours of the night the Chaplain and the Consolers, 
having assembled in Sant' Orsola, and having gone 
to the prison of Torre del Nona, and entered our 
chapel, and having made the accustomed prayers, 
the condemned apostate friar, Giordano Bruni (sic), 
a native of Nola in Naples, an impenitent heretic, 
was introduced. He having been exhorted by our 
brethren with all charity, we having also called to 
the work two Dominican priests, two from the Gesu, 
two Oratorians, and a Hieronymite. With every 
mark of affection and with much erudition, these 
priests showed the miserable man his many errors, 
but he remained fixed in his accursed obstinacy, 
confusing his intellect with a thousand perversities. 
His determination proving invincible, he was led by 
the Officers of Justice to the Campo di Fiori, and 
there having been stripped and bound to a stake, 
he was burned alive, our Company constantly chant- 
ing the Litanies, and the Comforters exhorting him 
to the very last moment to abandon his obstinacy. 
But he finished his miserable life in it." 

Thus is finally settled the question of the fate of 
the Philosopher of Nola. There need be ro sus- 
picion cast, great though be the temptation to do 
so, upon the authenticity of the decisive document; 
for although the unscrupulous Crispi presided at 
its delivery from the bowels of oblivion, the mem- 
bers of the Confraternity of San Giovanni Decollato 
admitted that it was transcribed from their records. 







Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: tpp 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

/79^n77Q-?111 




k : ^'%: >V 









-y 



A, 



+m V 



-?0 






%,^' 



**' * 



V- ,cV 



